gis.diagnose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns an explanation with likely cause, affected step, and proposed fixes, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it executes anything, or what permissions or limits apply.

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 three front-loaded sentences with no waste: it states purpose, input, and output in order. Every sentence contributes directly to using the tool.

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 is simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema exists. The description covers purpose, input source, and return content adequately, though it lacks sibling routing and explicit safety context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It does so by specifying that error_text should be the error message or traceback, which adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema title 'Error Text.'

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Diagnose a GIS/QGIS error and suggest fixes.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as gis.explain_last_run or gis.run.

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?

It tells the agent to 'Provide the error message or traceback,' which is a clear input usage instruction. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gis.explain_last_run, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites.

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