diagnose_workspace

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it reads the live graph, checks against node schemas, reports muted/bypassed nodes, includes caching behavior for schemas, and explicitly states that it does not guarantee the run will succeed. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is somewhat longer than the minimal needed, but each sentence adds meaningful context (e.g., node schema checks, fix tools, limitations, parameter details). No fluff or repetition.

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, the description covers functionality, parameter semantics, relationship to fix tools, default behavior, and limitations. With an output schema present, there is no need to describe return values, making the description complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description explains all three parameters: scope ('all', 'root', or 'active' with reference to get_workspace_graph), refresh_schemas (re-fetch /object_info, caching lifecycle), and client_id (which tab to inspect, default behavior). This fully compensates for the 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 opens with 'Report what is wrong with the workflow open in the browser, worst first,' a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning that 'the other workspace tools are what applies it' and listing them.

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?

Provides explicit alternatives and guidance: names set_workspace_links, set_workspace_values, etc. as the tools that apply fixes, explains why default scope='all' is set, and states that a clean report is not a promise of run success. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-rely guidance.

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