diagnose_terragrunt_error

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'root cause analysis and solutions' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects. For a diagnostic tool, more behavioral context (e.g., does it modify state?) is needed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope. No redundant words. Efficient and easy to scan.

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?

With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks information about return format, how to interpret confidence or maxMatches, and how parameters are used in analysis. It is incomplete for effective use without reference to external documentation.

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% (all 12 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's minimal parameter labels (e.g., 'Error message'). It provides no additional guidance on how parameters affect diagnosis.

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 that the tool diagnoses Terragrunt and Terraform errors with root cause analysis and solutions, listing specific error types (dependency cycles, state lock errors, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cli_reference' or 'search_docs', which are not diagnostic.

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 lists specific error types handled (dependency cycles, state lock errors, provider issues, HCL syntax problems), giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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