Diagnose why a job failed

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the tool's behavior: finds the most recent session, reads failure/warning logs, and returns job state, session result, and log entries. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the term 'diagnose' and 'triage' imply analysis without modification. Missing details about permissions or rate limits, but adequate for a diagnostic tool.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence explains the full action and outputs; the second provides a usage trigger. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns (job state, session result, log entries). It is complete for a diagnostic tool of this simplicity.

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% (jobId description already says 'Job ID (GUID) from list_jobs'), so the description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. The description only restates 'given a job ID', which does not enhance the parameter's meaning. Baseline 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 purpose: diagnose a failed job by aggregating session logs and state. It uses a specific verb ('diagnose') and resource ('job'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_job or get_session_logs by combining multiple steps into one triage action.

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?

Explicitly says 'Start here whenever the user asks "why is <job> failing?"', giving a concrete trigger for use. This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, even though alternative tools are not listed.

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