diagnose_error

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent annotations, the description adds real behavioral context: it conditionally folds Detective URL templates when req_id/chat_id are present and explicitly states that Hub scraping is not performed. This is meaningful and does not contradict the 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?

Three terse, front-loaded sentences cover the core mapping behavior, the conditional link behavior, and a key exclusion. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with 10 optional parameters, the description explains the central behavior and one important conditional, and an output schema exists to document return values. Still, it does not clarify which parameters should be populated or how the mapping consumes them, so an agent must infer a significant part of invocation.

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 schema provides only names and empty-string defaults, so the description's clarification that req_id/chat_id trigger detective_links is a genuine addition. But the remaining eight parameters are only loosely implied to be 'error signals,' with no specifics about how they are used, leaving a notable coverage gap.

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 names a concrete action and object ('Map error signals to failure_class + errors.md anchor'), so an agent can tell what the tool accomplishes. The notes about Detective URL templates and not scraping Hub further sharpen scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling diagnostic tools like doctor.

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 purpose sentence implies this should be used when error signals need mapping to a failure class and errors.md anchor, and 'Does not scrape Hub' is a useful exclusion. However, there is no explicit 'use when...' or 'instead of...' guidance, and no alternative sibling is named, so routing is largely left to inference.

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