diagnoseConfig

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it performs diagnosis (analysis without mutation), returns a human-readable diagnostic report (output format), and provides actionable fixes (practical guidance). However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific problem examples and output details in a single, efficient sentence. Every part adds value without redundancy, making it 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?

Given the tool's complexity (diagnosing configurations with nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, behavior, and output format. However, it could be more complete by specifying error cases or limitations, though it compensates well with clear problem examples and actionable output.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., examples of 'component' and 'props'), resulting in a baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific action ('diagnose') and resource ('Semiotic chart configuration'), listing concrete problem types like 'empty data, bad dimensions, missing accessors, wrong data shape'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'renderChart' (visualization) and 'suggestChart' (recommendation) by focusing on validation and debugging.

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 usage when a chart configuration might have issues, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getSchema' (for schema inspection) or 'reportIssue' (for reporting problems). It provides some context through the problem examples but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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