Run diagnostics

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

The description states the tool is deterministic and does not use LLM, which aligns with the idempotentHint. However, it does not clarify if the tool modifies the capture state or any other side effects beyond running diagnostics. The annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent, but the description adds little beyond that.

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action. However, it could afford to include parameter guidance without becoming overly verbose. It earns its place but is slightly minimal.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and 35 sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the findings summary structure, how to use returned data, or how this tool relates to others like webgl_list_rules or webgl_get_finding_details. The agent needs more contextual information to use it effectively.

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% with no parameter descriptions in the schema, and the description does not mention any parameters. The agent must rely solely on parameter names and types, which is insufficient for correct invocation. The description fails to add meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 it runs deterministic diagnostic rules on a capture and returns a findings summary. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on diagnostics and noting 'no LLM', which sets it apart from other tools like webgl_list_rules.

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 implies usage for rule-based analysis but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as webgl_list_rules to see available rules first, or how to interpret results. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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