Diagnose runtime

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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: returned fields, diagnosed/unknown status, the 70% confidence cutoff, confidence breakdown, limitations, alternative causes, timeline, and recommended fixes. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a dense but useful inventory of return behavior and the unknown-status threshold. No sentence is filler, and the length is justified because no output schema exists.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description's detailed return-value explanation is essential and largely complete for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool. It still omits routing guidance versus sibling diagnostic tools and any precondition about how evidence must be captured, keeping it short of 5.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the schema or description to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter guidance.

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 action (correlate captured runtime evidence into a root-cause diagnosis) and resource, going beyond merely restating the title. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling diagnostic tools such as diagnose_performance or explain_diagnosis, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance. It implies the tool is used after runtime evidence has been captured, but does not say when to choose it over diagnose_performance, explain_diagnosis, or the lower-level evidence tools.

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