diagnose_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that 'explain' returns forensic state, rules, and history, and 'topology' returns a Mermaid home graph. However, it omits details like whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or what happens on failure (e.g., item not found).

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 (two sentences) and front-loads the primary purpose ('Item diagnostics'). The second sentence structures the actions clearly, though a bit run-on. Nearly all words are informative, with minimal waste.

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 the lack of an output schema and moderate complexity, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the return format for either action (e.g., structure of forensic details, Mermaid syntax, error states). Users cannot anticipate what data they receive, which is critical for a diagnostic tool.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema. For 'action', it explains the two enum values ('explain' and 'topology') with their functions, which the schema only lists as options. For 'itemName', it notes it is required for 'explain', exceeding the schema's own description. However, it does not clarify the format or source of item 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 tool is for item diagnostics and specifies two distinct actions: 'explain' (forensic state, rules, history) and 'topology' (Mermaid home graph). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'analyze_home' (whole-home analysis) and 'query_items' (simple listing), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resolve_item', 'remediate', or 'manage_item'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where other tools would be more appropriate.

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