diagnose_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly describes the ordered runbook, the ranked-hypothesis output, and the fact that it returns a next tool to run. It does not explicitly mention side effects or cost, but the diagnostic framing strongly implies a read-only analysis wrapper.

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 compact: a dense but meaningful runbook list followed by the output contract and usage trigger. Every sentence adds information, there is no filler, and the key 'Start here' guidance is front-loaded.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect (ranked hypotheses, evidence, and next tool), when to invoke it, and what diagnostic path it follows. Combined with full schema coverage for the three parameters, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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%, with service, window, and namespace already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the runbook's conceptual categories, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantic load.

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 states exactly what the tool produces: ranked hypotheses with evidence and a recommendation for the next tool to run. The 'Start here for why is X broken/slow?' phrase clearly frames it as a diagnostic entry point, distinguishing it from the many sibling get_* tools that fetch individual signals.

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 phrase 'Start here' gives explicit when-to-use guidance for service health or performance questions, and the runbook indicates it orchestrates a sequence of diagnostic steps. It does not enumerate specific when-not-to-use cases or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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