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 only says 'Analyze,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe return format, side effects, permissions, or limitations. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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, direct sentence that states the tool's purpose without any filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain what analysis is performed, how file_id relates to image_base64, or what the response contains. The description is complete for a simple tool but inadequate for this multi-parameter, no-output-schema tool.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema documents 3 of 5 parameters (60%), leaving 'task' and 'project_context' entirely undocumented in both the description and schema. The description does not compensate for these gaps or clarify how the parameters relate to the analysis task.

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 'Analyze' with a specific resource: 'error, terminal, console, browser, or build failure screenshots.' This clearly scopes the tool and differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_ui_screenshot or analyze_chart_image, which target different screenshot categories.

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 provides clear context by enumerating the screenshot types this tool handles (error, terminal, console, browser, build failure), which effectively tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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