diagnose-application

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It lists what data is fetched (status, resource tree, events, logs from unhealthy pods) but does not disclose if the operation is read-only, potential side effects, error behavior, or performance implications.

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 front-loads the key composite nature. It is efficient but could be slightly better structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 tool's complexity (composite of multiple diagnostics), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'application status' covers, what 'resource tree' includes, or the format of events and logs. Important context is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional context beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like name, profile, tailLines, and maxPodLogs. No parameter meaning is enhanced.

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 precisely states it's a composite troubleshooting tool combining application status, resource tree, events, and logs from unhealthy pods. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-application or get-application-pod-logs, which are single-purpose.

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?

The description implies use for comprehensive troubleshooting but does not explicitly state when to use it versus individual diagnostic tools (e.g., get-application-pod-logs). There's no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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