interpret_diagnostics

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses that the tool returns either a success object with detailed test results or an error object for license failure. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the 'Pro tier' designation and license error imply access control. The description is thorough but stops short of stating whether the tool is read-only.

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 well-structured with a clear flow: core purpose, feature list, usage cues, parameter list, return value structure. It is concise for the amount of information conveyed, though the feature list could be slightly compressed.

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 no annotations and an output schema that presumably captures return structure, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, return value on success and failure, and high-level parameter meanings. It lacks detailed parameter formats but compensates with example usage scenarios.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It lists the four parameters but provides minimal detail: 'triangle: As in compute_chain_ladder' is vague, and 'excluded: Outlier exclusions to honour' lacks specificity. The defaults are mentioned only for outlier_threshold. Given the lack of schema descriptions, the parameter explanations are insufficient to fully understand input formats.

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 tool executes Mack assumption diagnostics and labels results with verdicts and recommendations. It distinguishes itself from the free-tier 'mack_diagnostics' by listing four specific added capabilities (verdict band, summary, recommendation, overall verdict).

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?

Provides explicit usage cues: 'Use this when the user asks "is the chain ladder OK?", "should I publish this?", or "what does the model tell me about itself?".' Also contrasts with free-tier 'mack_diagnostics' to guide when to use this Pro version.

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