neon3_diagnose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says the tool 'aggregates' data, without disclosing whether it is read-only, what side effects or outputs occur, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the response format looks like. For a diagnostic tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It fronts the main action and context, but its brevity comes at the cost of critical detail. It is appropriately sized, though not the most informative.

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 3 parameters (all optional), no output schema, and a crowded sibling set, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens when called with no arguments, what the aggregated output looks like, or how it differs from neon3_ui_snapshot and neon3_nui_inspect. An agent cannot confidently decide when or how to invoke it.

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 explain the parameters. It mentions the data types ('service snapshots, UI revisions, interaction trace') but does not map them to ui_endpoint, wgpu_endpoint, or interaction_id. It never explains what these endpoints are or how they relate, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and required format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Aggregate') and names the data sources (service snapshots, UI revisions, interaction trace) for a defined context (Neon3 authoring issue). It distinguishes the tool's role as aggregator, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like neon3_ui_snapshot or neon3_nui_inspect, leaving some ambiguity about its uniqueness.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that also handle UI snapshots or inspection. The description implies it is for diagnosing an authoring issue, but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios. The agent must infer usage context.

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