setup_diagnose_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'returns' diagnostic information, suggesting read-only behavior, but does not confirm it is non-destructive, require permissions, or have side effects. Information about the output format and scope of checks is missing.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and immediately conveys the value (error messages with fix instructions). Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple (no params, no output schema), but the description lacks details about the return format (e.g., is it a list of errors, a single string, structured data?). It mentions 'specific error messages with fix instructions' but does not specify structure, pagination, or error cases. A bit more detail would improve completeness.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params), so schema coverage is 100% trivially. According to guidelines, 0 params baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exist.

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 clearly states the tool diagnoses configuration problems and returns error messages with fix instructions. The verb 'diagnose' and resource 'AgenticBTC configuration problems' are specific and distinguish it from sibling setup tools like setup_check_status or setup_validate_credentials.

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 usage for diagnosing configuration problems but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state when not to use it or mention other tools that might be more appropriate for status checks or validation.

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