list_diagnostic_signatures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains that signatures are grouped by call stack and represent recurring issues, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, permissions, or safety considerations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and defines signatures; the second provides actionable guidance on using a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description defines what signatures are, lists the types, and provides a next step. For a list tool with 3 params (all described) and no output schema, this covers essential context. It lacks mention of pagination or default limit but the schema handles constraints. Overall fairly complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the diagnosticType enum by listing the three types (disk writes, hangs, slow launches) that match the enum values. It does not add significant meaning to buildId or limit beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool lists 'power and performance diagnostic signatures for a build' and explains what signatures are (recurring performance issues grouped by call stack). It distinguishes from list_diagnostic_logs by mentioning signatures are grouped and logs provide detailed logs per signature.

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 explicitly directs use of list_diagnostic_logs with a signature ID to get detailed logs, providing an alternative for when detailed logs are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to other siblings.

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