Runtime Import Diagnose

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that execution occurs in isolated subprocesses, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain BACH or any potential side effects beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the core function. There is no redundant information, and it is efficiently front-loaded.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks explanation of return values or diagnostic results. The term 'BACH-abgeleitete' is undefined, and the tool's behavior beyond isolation is unclear. More context is needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely states parameters implicitly through the task. No enrichment of parameter semantics is provided.

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 specifies a concrete action: performing Python runtime import diagnostics in isolated subprocesses, derived from BACH. It distinguishes the tool from static analysis siblings like cc_diagnose_imports by emphasizing 'runtime' and 'subprocess', but does not explicitly compare with alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., cc_diagnose_imports). There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely.

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