rew_diagnostic_execute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds one useful behavioral note: 'audible operations require physical-readiness confirmation,' which alerts the agent to a required safety prerequisite. However, it does not explain other behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., whether execution is destructive or modifies system state), blocking behavior, or the nature of the returned data. The single disclosure is valuable but insufficient for a tool that executes a live plan, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose immediately. It avoids unnecessary words and is efficient. However, its brevity contributes to under-specification across other dimensions; it is concise but not optimally informative. The structure is clear and readable, earning a 4 for conciseness without penalizing for the lack of detail.

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?

This tool has a nested object (plan), four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making it moderately complex. The description is far too thin to be complete: it does not explain the plan structure, the difference between confirm and audibleReady, the origin or format of confirmationToken, or what the execution returns or how it affects the environment. An agent operating from this description would struggle to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge, so completeness is low.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for explaining the four parameters (plan, confirm, audibleReady, confirmationToken). The description only hints at audible operations needing readiness, which maps to audibleReady and confirmationToken, but it does not explain the plan object structure, the confirm flag's role, or how confirmationToken is obtained or validated. This is a significant gap; the description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema names.

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 action: 'Execute an exact live REW diagnostic plan.' It identifies the resource (a diagnostic plan) and the verb (execute), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling execute tools like rew_measurement_execute or rew_generate_trace_execute, but the specificity to 'REW diagnostic plan' provides a reasonable distinction, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 the tool is used when a diagnostic plan already exists ('Execute an exact live REW diagnostic plan'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, nor does it mention prerequisites like calling rew_diagnostic_plan to create the plan. There is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer in alternative scenarios. This leaves the agent without explicit decision support.

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