submit_diagnostic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Record' signals a write operation and 'one diagnostic answer' narrows scope, but the description is silent on persistence, permission requirements, side effects, or what happens after submission.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and object come first. It is concise and readable, though it is concise partly because it omits important context, which keeps it from being a 5.

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 mutation tool with eight parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, one clause is far too little to select and invoke the tool reliably. The description does not explain the diagnostic context, the required session field, or the optional fields' roles, leaving significant 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 does not compensate. It mentions 'answer' but provides no meaning for the other seven parameters such as session_id, item_id, node_id, hint_level, request_id, or response_time, forcing the agent to guess their purpose.

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 ('Record') and a clear resource ('one diagnostic answer as a learner attempt'), so an agent can tell this is the tool for persisting a single diagnostic answer. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like submit_attempt or save_diagnostic_result, so it misses the top score.

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 wording implies this should be used when an agent has a diagnostic answer to record as an attempt, rather than when creating a session or retrieving results. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over the many sibling tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance is only implied.

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