get_diagnosis

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, error handling, rate limits, or auth requirements. The mention of output contents (delivery issues, etc.) adds minimal 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 succinct, with a bilingual intro and a clear docstring-like parameter list. It is efficient with no fluff, though the Chinese phrase is redundant for an English-speaking agent.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks details on return format, error cases, or performance implications. The given information is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for safe invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides brief semantic information for each parameter (e.g., 'The advertiser account ID'). This compensates marginally, but the semantics are minimal and not detailed.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'diagnostic analysis for a campaign', and lists specific aspects like 'delivery issues, budget constraints, audience saturation, and optimization recommendations'. This differentiates it from sibling report tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 usage when needing campaign diagnostic analysis (e.g., instead of generic reports), but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives among siblings.

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