diagnose_incident

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: it returns a sin name, scripture, and remediation steps, and clarifies that the theology is a joke while the remediation is useful, setting accurate expectations.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous text. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output, the second provides examples and clarifies the tone.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains return values (sin, scripture, remediation) and lists many incident types handled. Slightly more detail about output format could improve completeness.

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% with a detailed description of the symptom parameter including examples. The tool description adds no additional information beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 diagnoses Kubernetes incidents, lists specific symptoms it handles, and distinguishes it from religious-themed sibling tools like confess_sin by emphasizing practical remediation.

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 lists when to use the tool (e.g., for CrashLoopBackOff, OOMKilled) and implies it's for troubleshooting, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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