diagnose_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool combines metadata and error logs, deduplicates and time-sorts, and includes a configurable tail. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or discuss permissions, but for a diagnostic tool this is minor and the core behavior is well covered.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Returns:' and 'Args:' sections are concise and every sentence adds value. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the three return fields and their contents. It also covers parameters, usage, and differentiation from sibling tools. The agent has all necessary context to decide when to use the tool and what to expect.

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 fully compensates. Each parameter is explained with meaningful context: job_id is 'the ID', folder_name clarifies it is the 'display name' (not an ID), and tail specifies 'most-recent log entries' with a default. This goes beyond the schema's basic types.

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 ('Return a focused diagnostic report') and clearly identifies the resource ('a job'). It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly stating it is the 'first tool to call' for failure diagnosis and contrasting it with get_job + get_job_logs.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('when asked "what went wrong?" or "why did this job fail?"'), states the alternative (get_job + get_job_logs), and provides a clear exclusion condition ('Only use get_job_logs afterward if you need more log history than tail provides or need to paginate').

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