diagnose_error_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'locates the problem and gives actionable repair suggestions,' which conveys the output behavior. However, it does not disclose limitations (e.g., image quality, dependence on context) or any potential side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 and well-structured: one sentence for purpose, followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter explanations are concise and aligned with the schema.

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 simplicity of the tool (only two parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and high-level behavior. It does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over siblings, but the dedicated error-diagnosis scope makes the tool's role clear. Overall, it is complete for its complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: image (path/URL/base64 URI) and context (optional background info), adding meaning beyond the bare 'string' type. It does not specify constraints like file size or supported formats, but for two simple parameters this is sufficient.

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 function: analyze error/exception screenshots, locate the problem, and give actionable repair suggestions. It uses a specific verb ('diagnose') and resource ('error screenshot'), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generic image_analysis or extract_text_from_screenshot.

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 implicitly defines the use case (analyzing error screenshots) which guides selection over generic alternatives, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools. The clarity of purpose makes the usage context evident, but explicit exclusionary guidance is absent.

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