flaky_diagnose_root_cause

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool diagnoses from code and logs but does not disclose whether it modifies anything, requires authentication behavior beyond the api_key parameter, what form the diagnosis takes, or whether it uses external services.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundant adverbs, or unnecessary caveats. It communicates the core operation efficiently.

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?

The description names the two required inputs and the diagnostic intent, which is enough to attempt a basic call. However, there is no output schema and no statement about what the tool returns, and the optional source_code parameter's role is never described outside the schema.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only a loose restatement of test_code and failure_logs as 'code and failure logs' and does not clarify when source_code should be provided or how api_key is used beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 ('Diagnose') and resource ('root cause of a specific flaky test') and clearly indicates the inputs are code and failure logs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like flaky_detect_patterns and flaky_fix_suggestions, which address adjacent but different goals.

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 implies a usage context: when you have a specific flaky test's code and failure logs and want root-cause diagnosis. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over flaky_detect_patterns or flaky_fix_suggestions, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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