run_diagnosis

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

Description claims to 'update the issue ledger' and 'generate documentation', which suggest write side effects. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, creating a direct contradiction. The description does not resolve this inconsistency.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: first sentence lists activities, second mentions outputs, third clarifies role. Every sentence 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 description lacks details about the output format or what the 'documentation' and 'issue ledger' entail. The contradiction with annotations undermines trust. Given the complexity (many siblings, no output schema), more behavioral context is needed.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions. The description adds context by listing some focus areas but does not fully cover the enum values. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 'Run a full backend diagnosis' and lists specific activities (routes, contracts, errors, etc.). It positions itself as 'the main entry point', distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual areas.

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 identifies this as 'the main entry point', implying it should be used first for a comprehensive overview. However, it does not explicitly state when to use more specific sibling tools instead or provide exclusion criteria.

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