diagnose_error

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'diagnose' without explaining whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it accesses the file system for any side effects, or any prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably analyzes an image.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short phrases (Chinese and English) that immediately convey the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description gives no hint about what a 'diagnosis' returns or what capabilities/limitations the tool has. The bilingual phrasing also introduces ambiguity (error image vs. screenshot), leaving the agent under-informed for a tool that could vary widely in behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'image_path', whose description already provides the absolute-path requirement. The tool description adds no parameter-specific nuance, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb ('diagnose') and resource ('error screenshot file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_image, extract_text, and describe_ui. The Chinese text reinforces this by specifying '错误图片文件' (error image file), though it slightly differs from the English 'screenshot'.

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 implies use for error screenshot files, providing clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, missing an opportunity to differentiate from the sibling image-analysis tools.

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