driftguard_diagnose_failure

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully signal an advisory scope — it "suggerisce la soluzione immediata" rather than applying it — which tells the agent this is analysis, not remediation. However, it says nothing about whether it executes commands, reads log files, requires permissions, or what the response contains, so the behavioral picture is only partially filled in.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the action and then scopes it with the parenthetical problem list; nothing is redundant. The parenthetical is slightly dense but every item earns its place by clarifying the diagnostic domain.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers the input domain and states what comes back (a diagnosis plus an immediate suggested fix), which is the key missing piece when no output schema exists. The main gap is the absence of any hint that the tool is purely analytical and does not itself fix the problem, which matters given mutating siblings in the same family.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that errorOutput is the raw error text or stack trace. The description's phrase "messaggio di errore o output di log" is consistent with the schema but adds no format, size, or language constraints beyond it.

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 gives a specific verb ("Analizza ... per diagnosticare") and a specific input resource ("messaggio di errore o output di log"), then enumerates the problem classes it covers (blocked ports, zombie processes, permissions, missing commands). That is enough to separate it from siblings like driftguard_inspect_ports or driftguard_kill_process, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it holds an error message or stack trace. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives (e.g. use inspect_ports for a live port check, kill_process to actually resolve a zombie), so the agent must reason about the boundary itself.

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