diagnose_sglang

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

The description discloses 'Pure pattern-matching against known failure modes... No inference, no external calls.' This adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), confirming the tool is safe and local. There is 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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, how it works, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no redundant words.

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 has an output schema (acknowledged in context signals), and the description covers return categories ('critical issues, non-fatal warnings, recommended baseline config') and behavior with no inputs. Given the complexity (6 optional params) and presence of output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with each parameter's purpose documented. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond 'all parameters are optional'. With high schema coverage, baseline score is 3; the description does not improve or degrade it.

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 begins with 'Validate an SGLang configuration for NVIDIA DGX Spark (GB10/SM121A)', clearly stating the action (validate) and the specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are unrelated (get_article, list_tags, search_blog). This is a precise verb+resource combination.

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 explicitly states 'All parameters are optional; supply only what you have. With no inputs you get the recommended config and a 'unknown' verdict.' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (anytime you have SGLang config details) and what happens with no inputs. It does not explicitly exclude cases, but given siblings are unrelated, it is sufficient.

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