build_diagnosis_bundle

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. The word 'store' adds context that this operation persists data, but the description does not elaborate on side effects or required permissions beyond what annotations imply.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately brief for a tool with only one parameter and no need for lengthy explanation.

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?

Despite having an output schema and a simple single-parameter interface, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the diagnosis artifact contains, when it should be built, or how it relates to sibling analysis tools, leaving the agent uncertain about the overall workflow.

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 defines analysis_id as a required string but the description gives no explanation of what it represents or how to obtain it. With 0% schema coverage in the description, the agent gets no extra semantic help beyond the title 'Analysis Id'.

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 uses specific verbs 'Build and store' and names the resource 'diagnosis artifact', which conveys the tool's action. It is distinct from sibling tools like analyze_profile or classify_hotspots by focusing on artifact creation, though the term 'evidence-constrained' is somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, sequencing relative to other analysis tools, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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