contribos_diagnose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never says whether the tool is read-only, whether it executes or merely reads the supplied log, what permissions it needs, or how it handles the two input sources — for a diagnosis tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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; the core verb and resource lead, and the enumerated failure modes are compact and scannable.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what comes back and whether the two optional inputs are alternatives or can be combined. The failure taxonomy is helpful, but the return behavior is left entirely implicit.

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 100%, so both parameters (log, output_file) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or precedence guidance beyond the schema's own wording, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Explain) and resource (a failed install or test run), then enumerates the failure categories it can diagnose, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closest sibling, contribos_check.

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?

Usage is implied by the trigger condition 'a failed install or test run', but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as contribos_check, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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