diagnose_error_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool specializes in error analysis and 'provides actionable solutions,' implying a read-analyze-advise workflow. While it doesn't mention edge cases like image quality or privacy, the core behavior is clear and not contradicted by any annotations.

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, front-loading the primary function and then providing usage guidance and exclusions in separate short paragraphs. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 tool is simple with only 3 parameters, all documented in the schema. The description explains when to use it and what it returns ('actionable solutions'), which is enough for selection and invocation. It does not specify failure modes (e.g., unreadable images), but this is not essential for basic use. The explicit do-not-use list adds valuable contextual grounding.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but does not introduce parameter-level details beyond the schema, which is appropriate given the strong schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb phrase 'Diagnose and analyze' and identifies the exact resource: 'error messages, stack traces, and exception screenshots.' It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly excluding code extraction, UI analysis, and diagram understanding, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this tool ONLY when the user has an error screenshot and needs help understanding or fixing it.' It also provides clear exclusion criteria ('Do NOT use for: code extraction, UI analysis, or diagram understanding'), offering strong guidance relative to the sibling image analysis tools.

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