diagnose_notebook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It uses non-mutating verbs ('reads', 'pulls', 'identifies', 'flags') and lists specific diagnostics, clearly indicating a read-only analytical tool. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything' or discuss return format, but it describes the scope of inspection in enough detail to set expectations. This goes beyond a simple one-liner, earning a 4.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear opening line, followed by a bulleted list of diagnostic actions, and ending with usage guidance. Each line provides distinct information without redundancy, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity. It is easy to scan and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, what it reads, what issues it flags, and when to use it. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values in detail. The main gap is explicit parameter definitions, but the prose implies their roles. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, meriting a 4.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It says 'most recent (or specified) run' implying run_id identifies a run, and 'Hex notebook' implies project_id identifies the notebook. However, it does not explicitly name or define the parameters, leaving some ambiguity. The prose offers partial semantic clues, but not full compensation, so a 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a 'Full diagnostic sweep of a Hex notebook' and enumerates specific diagnostic actions like reading cell sources, pulling run error details, identifying failed cells, and flagging common issues. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_cell_source (which reads a single cell) and run_project (which executes the notebook). The verb 'diagnose' plus the resource 'notebook' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use this whenever a notebook fails to load, shows blank charts, or behaves incorrectly when filters are applied.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not include exclusions or mention alternative tools like inspect_filter_behavior. Therefore, while it offers clear context, it lacks a full when/when-not/alternatives structure, warranting a 4.

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