diagnose_stage

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 only discloses one cryptic trait ('does not relax tolerances') and omits what state is recorded, whether it mutates anything, permission requirements, or whether it is idempotent. For a write/record operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. However, the closing clause is vague enough that it earns less than a full concise, informative statement would.

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?

A 3-parameter, all-required tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage needs more than two terse sentences. The description leaves the meaning of 'config', the return/effect of recording, and permissions unexplained, so an agent lacks enough to call it confidently.

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 all three parameters (config, stage, note) are undocumented in the schema. The description hints at 'stage' and the failure-cause note but never explains the 'config' parameter or the expected format for any of them. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Record an established failure cause' tied to a stage. An agent can grasp the core action, though it is not sharply differentiated from siblings like record_review or pipeline_run. The trailing phrase 'Does not relax tolerances' is cryptic and does not clarify the operation.

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?

Provides one timing hint: 'before retrying a stage.' That implies when to call it, but no alternatives are named (e.g., pipeline_run for the retry itself) and there is no explicit when-not guidance. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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