generate_diagnostic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it adds a valuable non-obvious behavior: the State Guard rejection and the precise bypass condition. It does not disclose whether a successful call has side effects or what the blueprint contains, but the disclosed constraint is genuinely useful.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and the second adds a critical rejection condition, so 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description conveys purpose and an important precondition, which is minimally viable. However, it leaves undefined what a 'diagnostic blueprint' is, how this relates to sibling diagnostic tools, and what the parameters mean, so an agent is left with noticeable gaps.

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%, and the description says nothing about request_id or session_id. Because the coverage is low, the description needed to explain the parameters but did not, leaving the schema to do all the work.

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 uses a specific verb-object pair, 'Return a diagnostic blueprint,' so the basic purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish this from similar siblings such as generate_assessment or get_diagnostic_result, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a concrete precondition: the call is rejected until Domain Grounding is completed unless allow_skip_domain_grounding=true. This implies when the call is allowed, but it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like submit_diagnostic or get_diagnostic_result.

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