diagnose_error_screenshot

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only restates the tool's apparent function and offers no details about limitations, how the diagnosis is generated, required image clarity, or whether any side effects occur. 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no fluff or redundancy, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a straightforward stated purpose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description alone must provide a complete picture. It fails to explain practical details such as how to construct the prompt, what image formats are acceptable, or what kind of diagnosis to expect. The tool appears complex enough that this one-sentence description is entirely inadequate.

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 the description does not compensate. It gives no explanation of what 'image_source' should point to, what should be included in 'prompt', or how the optional 'context' modifies behavior. The description is entirely unhelpful for understanding parameter usage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Diagnose an error/stack trace shown in a screenshot.' It distinguishes this tool from sibling analysis tools like analyze_image or extract_text_from_screenshot by focusing on error/stack trace diagnosis rather than general analysis or text extraction.

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 context: use when you have a screenshot containing an error or stack trace to diagnose. It provides a clear scenario but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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