ensp_diagnose_error

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields including confidence and severity, which helps the agent interpret results, but says nothing about whether the tool executes probe commands itself (it says probe_commands are suggested, which is good context) or about latency/cost. Partial coverage but not rich.

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?

Structured with labeled sections (参数/返回/使用场景) that make it scannable. Slightly verbose in enumerating returned fields, but each section is front-loaded with purpose first and wastes little.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, yet the description restates them anyway, which is redundant but harmless. For a single-error diagnostic tool with no annotations, the trigger condition, parameters, and output fields are all covered; only alternative-tool routing is thin.

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 must compensate, which it does: session_id_or_name, error_text (with a concrete source pointer to ensp_send_command's errors field), and command's optional purpose for more precise diagnosis. That is near-complete coverage of all three params.

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?

Specific verb+resource: '对一条命令错误进行智能诊断' (diagnose a command error) with a clear output contract (root cause analysis and fix suggestions). It is distinguishable from siblings like ensp_diagnose_batch by handling a single error and from ensp_send_command which merely produces the error.

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 使用场景 section gives an explicit trigger and an alternative: when ensp_send_command returns errored=True, pass errors here instead of giving up or blindly retrying. It names a sibling and a behavioral exclusion, though it doesn't contrast with ensp_diagnose_batch or ensp_gather_diagnostic_context.

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