diagnose_script_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of extracting a reduced problem area, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the tool modifies anything (likely read-only), required permissions, or any side effects. Partial transparency, leaving 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and purpose. No extraneous words, every part serves the goal. Ideal conciseness for a description.

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 should explain what is returned. It mentions extracting problem area but not the format (e.g., text snippet, line numbers). Also missing details on side effects and required permissions. Adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps for an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'script_id' and 'error_message'. The optional 'suspected_file' parameter is not elaborated. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Diagnose', the resource 'script issues', and a specific outcome: 'extract only the problem area (10-20 lines) for 99% output reduction'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'smart_fix_script' or 'execute_script_function' which have different purposes.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for diagnosing script issues with error messages, but lacks when-not-to-use or references to sibling tools. This is a gap for an agent deciding between many script-related tools.

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