Diagnose with Tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds operational detail: 'fetches build metadata once' and runs failure analysis and JUnit test parsing 'in parallel'. This goes beyond the annotations by revealing internal execution and efficiency, though it doesn't cover error handling or edge cases.

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 succinct: a two-line pitch, a short behavior sentence, and a clear arg list. It front-loads the purpose and avoids fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 medium complexity (combination of two operations), the description covers behavior, parameters, and rationale. It doesn't discuss what happens when both uuid and url are provided or neither, but the existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. Overall, sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all four args with meaning: uuid, tenant, url (as alternative), and brief (with default and effect). This adds value beyond the bare parameter names in the schema, though some descriptions (e.g., 'uuid: Build UUID') are minimally informative.

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 clearly states it 'combines diagnose_build and get_build_test_results' to provide 'One-call diagnosis + test results'. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like diagnose_build, get_build_test_results, and get_build_failures.

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?

It explicitly notes this tool 'Saves a round-trip vs calling both tools separately', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly exclude use cases like 'if you only need one result, use the individual tool', but the combined-purpose framing implies it. The alt-parameter option (url vs uuid+tenant) adds useful context.

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