diagnose_log

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it reduces the log to one error signature, chooses the most specific failure line rather than the last one, and returns documentation pages. This is useful, non-contradictory transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured: a front-loaded purpose statement, a short behavioral clarification, and a one-line parameter specification. Every sentence adds value, and the most important constraint (300-line limit) is stated explicitly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the key operational details an agent needs: input format, log truncation, and the error-reduction behavior. It does not specify what happens when no error signature is found, but the existing output schema reduces that burden.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does: 'log: The raw log text. Only the last 300 lines are read.' This clarifies both the content and a critical truncation behavior for the single parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Extract the error from a failing build or runtime log and fetch the docs for it.' It clearly conveys a diagnostic workflow distinct from a generic docs search, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state what makes it different from search_docs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool—when you have a failing build or runtime log—and includes the input constraint that only the last 300 lines are read. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_docs or read_page, nor does it state when those should be preferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.