diagnose_job

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the scanning behavior, the file types examined, the pattern coverage, categories, and the exact output format (Markdown panel with severity markers, source file references, and fix suggestions). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe timeout behavior, but 'scans' and 'diagnosis' strongly imply no mutation.

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 one-sentence purpose statement is followed by two scannable lines covering scope and output. Every sentence adds information, and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and only one required parameter, the description covers the core invocation context well: what the tool scans, why it is useful, and what form the report takes. It falls short only on parameter semantics and explicit alternative routing, which are already penalized in their respective dimensions.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It gives some context about job_name via 'a job's output files,' but it provides no explanation for timeout or workdir, and does not clarify how job_name relates to locating output files. This is below the minimum viable level for parameter understanding.

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 ('Run') and resource ('a job's output files'), and elaborates exactly what it does: scans .sta, .msg, .dat, .log files for 40+ error/warning patterns across 14 named categories. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_model_integrity or inspect_odb by grounding it in solver-log diagnosis.

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: call this when you need a comprehensive diagnosis of solver log output files and want actionable fixes. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as converge_advice, check_silent_failures, or monitor_job_status, nor does it give any exclusion criteria.

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