Diagnose a problem

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that the output is a ranked list of probable causes, but says nothing about evidence requirements, confidence, or how inputs like logs/config influence ranking.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating action first and scope second. It is efficiently written, though for an 8-parameter diagnostic tool this brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool taking 8 inputs including nested objects and an observation array, the total absence of input semantics and any usage/routing guidance leaves the definition materially incomplete.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and fails it: it documents none of logs, config, workspace, components, environment, observations, or description. The enumerated problem domains loosely echo the problem_type enum but add no format, size, or interaction guidance for any field.

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 gives a specific verb + outcome ('Rank probable causes') and enumerates the problem domains it handles (hook, plugin, skill, config, system, network, runtime). This distinguishes it from general-purpose siblings, though it never names a sibling like list_diagnostics, so separation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from alternatives such as list_diagnostics, collect_context, or run_self_test. The agent must infer that this is the analysis step from the verb 'rank' alone.

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