diagnose_release_groups

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

With no annotations, the description fully describes behavior: cache check, search trigger, retry logic, and return type ('structured diagnosis with recommendation'). It is transparent about the tool's operation, though could detail the diagnosis format.

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 concise: one paragraph summarizing the tool's purpose and behavior, followed by a bullet list of parameters. It front-loads the core functionality and avoids fluff. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Given 5 parameters and complexity (cache, retries), the description covers the logic flow. There is an output schema, so return values need not be detailed. It could mention error cases or when the diagnosis fails, but overall it's complete for the tool's purpose.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Series slug (e.g. "tvdb1234")', defaults provided). This adds meaning beyond the schema's property names and types, though it lacks constraints or advanced semantics.

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 verb 'diagnose' and the resource 'release groups', with a specific context: 'for a series by comparing config vs available releases'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_release_groups'.

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 explains the workflow: 'Checks provider cache first; if empty, triggers a manual search and retries.' This gives context on when the tool triggers searches. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select appropriately.

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