zalo_diagnose

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool reports state and next steps, implying read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state whether any changes are made, what permissions are needed, or what potential side effects exist. This is acceptable for a diagnostic tool but leaves room for more detail.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, immediately followed by the use case. No unnecessary words or repetition. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple diagnostic tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose and when to use it. It could elaborate on what 'link state' means or the format of the report, but the current text covers the essentials adequately.

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 and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. It avoids adding irrelevant parameter details.

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 a specific action ('Reports') on a specific resource ('Zalo's link state') and adds the purpose of guiding next steps if Zalo tools fail. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zalo_connect and zalo_send_message, which have different functions.

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 phrase 'if Zalo tools aren't working' provides a clear condition for when to use this diagnostic tool. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context implies it is for troubleshooting Zalo connectivity, setting it apart from other diagnose tools (e.g., whatsapp_diagnose) or connection tools.

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