diagnose_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key non-execution behavior and manual confirmation requirement, which is crucial for an AI agent. It also describes report contents (issues and recommendations), adding context beyond the tool name.

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 sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then efficiently lists report contents and the critical caveat. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a zero-parameter, report-generating tool with an output schema, the description covers essential content and non-execution behavior. It omits any prerequisite (e.g., running diagnose_collect first), which is a minor gap given the sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has 0 properties, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on report content and behavior rather than parameter details, which are irrelevant.

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 explicit verb '生成' and resource '环境诊断报告' with specific content: issue list (disk, tools, contract port) and recommended actions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like diagnose_collect (collect vs. report) and report_daily/weekly (different report types).

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 states it generates a diagnostic report and explicitly notes '不自动执行，需人工确认' (does not execute automatically, requires manual confirmation), providing clear context and a when-not. However, it does not name alternative tools like diagnose_collect or apply tools, so it misses the full 5.

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