Diagnose a Wan 3.0 video prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that no generation is submitted. It does not, however, say what the diagnosis actually returns or how failures are surfaced, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and puts the scoping clause at the end; no waste. Minor clumsiness ('WAN-30.video', a long enumerated list) keeps it from a 5.

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 seven-parameter, five-required diagnostic with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should convey what diagnostic output the agent receives and what counts as a failing check. It conveys the scope but not the result shape, leaving a real gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names five of the seven parameters (duration, resolution, reference-count, end-frame, audio) as things it validates, but omits 'mode' entirely and gives no enum values, ranges, or formats, so the enum in mode and the numeric limits stay invisible.

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?

States a specific verb (check/diagnose) and its objects: prompt clarity plus the currently displayed video settings against their boundaries. 'without submitting generation' pins down what kind of tool it is, but it never contrasts itself with build_wan3_video_prompt or plan_wan3_shot_sequence, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

'without submitting generation' implies a pre-flight/dry-run check, which is usable context, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and does not name build_wan3_video_prompt as the alternative for actually authoring a prompt.

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