diagnose_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently: it declares the operation read-only, scopes it to localhost, describes the output categories, and explains the important behavioral caveat that replayed or cached responses do not appear in the history log. Nothing about the tool's behavior is hidden.

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 dense yet every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then output details, then usage guidance, then a caveat, then constraints. It front-loads the core function and provides actionable detail without filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns, when to use it versus a sibling, and an important behavioral limitation. The parameter schema covers the inputs, and the description covers the behavior and interpretation of results, so an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents `limit` and `service` adequately. The description does not add extra semantic nuance to the parameters, but it does not need to do so given the schema's coverage; it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 ('Explain what is going wrong') with a clear resource ('the traffic the local server has served') and then enumerates concrete outputs: breakdown by source, status, content type, latency percentiles, and concrete findings. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `request_history` by mentioning the preference rule, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to prefer this tool over `request_history` when diagnosing why a response looks wrong, whether data is real or mocked, or why something is slow. The note about replayed/cached responses never reaching the history log also helps the agent interpret missing results and choose this tool appropriately.

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