diagnose_kotlin_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds scope context by listing the error families it handles and hints at a deliverable via 'targeted code fixes,' but it never states whether fixes are applied to files or merely suggested, nor what a diagnosis report contains. The ambiguity about side effects is a real gap for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler: the verb and resource come first and the sentence ends with a concrete outcome. The five-item enumeration is slightly run-on, but each item earns its place by defining diagnostic scope.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with a six-value targetPlatform enum, no output schema, and no annotations, the description plus fully-described schema yields a usable but incomplete picture. Missing elements include the diagnosis return format, whether fixes are applied or proposed, and which input combinations serve which error category.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description's error categories loosely map to inputs (gradleLog for Gradle failures, stackTrace for runtime issues, errorMessage for compilation errors), but it adds no parameter-level formatting or usage detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb ('Diagnoses') and a concrete resource: Kotlin error families spanning compilation, Gradle, Compose, coroutines, and Proguard/R8, with an explicit outcome ('targeted code fixes'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling set, which is composed entirely of generation, scaffolding, design, and audit tools, so an agent can pick this one without opening any schema.

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 enumerated error categories (Gradle sync/build failures, Compose recomposition issues, Coroutine race conditions) imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. Overlapping siblings such as audit_kotlin_codebase or generate_and_run_tests are never mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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