Diagnose Issue (Root Cause Analysis)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds extensive behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains the two-phase process (parallel topology fetch then metrics with baseline comparison), the use of percentage degradation for anomaly flags (with concrete example), and the absence of hardcoded thresholds. No contradiction with annotations.

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 fairly long but well-structured with clear phase breakdowns and an example. It front-loads the core purpose and phases. Every sentence provides useful information (purpose, phases, mechanism, return format). Could be slightly more concise by merging redundant statements about default focus, but overall effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, lack of output schema, and absence of nested objects, the description thoroughly covers what the tool does and what it returns (structured diagnostic report with causalityChain, tierMetrics, etc.). It explains the algorithm, anomaly detection method, and even includes an example. This is more than adequate for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and outputs.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear. The tool description restates these parameters without adding significant new semantic value. It recites defaults (e.g., durationInMins defaults to 60) and explains focus options, but these are already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool performs a two-phase automated root cause analysis for applications, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that are individual data-fetching tools (like appd_get_anomalies, appd_get_errors). The verb 'diagnose' combined with 'root cause analysis' precisely conveys the tool's purpose.

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 advises using this tool 'when you need to quickly understand why an application is behaving badly without manually calling many separate tools.' This provides a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of the sibling tools implies it is for comprehensive analysis rather than single-metric queries.

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