diagnose_symptoms

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 discloses that the tool outputs a ranked sequence based on cost/speed, not a definitive diagnosis. It also explains the semantic difference between 'fans spin briefly then stop' as a PSU/motherboard signal, adding useful behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, but the tool is likely read-only and non-destructive, which is not stated but also not contradicted.

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 main purpose in the first sentence, then provides parameter details in a readable, line-separated format. It is longer than ideal, but the length is justified by the need to explain 7 parameters. No redundant sentences; each piece adds value.

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 has an output schema (not shown) so it needn't describe return values. Given the complexity (7 params, 1 required), the description covers the input semantics and the overall behavior (ranked steps by cost). It lacks an explicit note about when to use the sibling beep-code tool, but that is a minor gap. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to effectively invoke the tool.

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 fully explain parameters. It does exactly that: each of the 7 parameters (powers_on, fans_spin, fans_stay_running, display_output, tried_cmos_reset, tried_minimal_config, tried_different_cable_or_monitor) is given a clear, meaningful explanation that goes beyond the schema titles. For example, it explains the difference between fans spinning and staying running, and what 'tried minimal config' means. This is exemplary compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: providing 'ranked next troubleshooting steps' for a PC that won't boot. It distinguishes itself from a diagnosis and from the sibling tool (lookup_beep_code) by focusing on a general sequence rather than beep codes. The verb 'diagnose' is accurate, and the resource (PC boot/display issues) is explicit.

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 when to use it: when a PC won't boot or show display, and what input is needed (what's been tried). It notes it's not a diagnosis, setting expectations, but does not explicitly state when to use the sibling tool (e.g., when beep codes are present). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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