diagnose_error

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

With no annotations, the description only says it analyzes and suggests causes/docs. It does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. The description is too sparse for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Phân tích log lỗi biên dịch MQL5'). It is efficient and contains no filler.

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 description is minimal for a tool with no output schema. It does not explain the format of returned suggestions or documentation, leaving the agent unsure of what to expect.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 it analyzes MQL5 compilation error logs and suggests causes and documentation, indicating a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_common_errors' or 'log_error'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for compilation error logs but lacks when-not-to-use or sibling tool comparisons.

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