svn_diagnose

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it diagnoses problems without detailing behavioral traits like what it inspects (e.g., logs, configurations), whether it's safe or destructive, or what output to expect. It adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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 in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, though it could be more front-loaded with specifics.

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 diagnostic tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what problems it diagnoses, how it works, or what results to expect, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 'Diagnosticar problemas específicos con comandos SVN' states a general purpose (diagnose SVN command problems) but lacks specificity about what kind of problems or how it differs from sibling tools like 'svn_health_check'. It's not tautological but remains vague about the exact scope.

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 alternatives like 'svn_health_check' or other diagnostic methods. The description implies usage for SVN command issues but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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