yaaif_ops_diagnosis_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully declares READ-ONLY, which is a key safety trait, and 'confirmed' hints at a status filter. However, it does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or what happens when the id is invalid or not found.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It leads with READ-ONLY and states the action and resource clearly, making it instantly scannable.

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 conceptually simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves some ambiguity about what a 'confirmed' diagnosis is and how the returned data is structured. It is adequate for a simple get-by-id, but could benefit from a pointer to related list/analyze tools.

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 75%, and the schema already documents max_chars, max_items, and summary_only. The description adds minimal meaning by linking the required 'id' to a diagnosis, but it does not elaborate on how the optional parameters shape the result beyond schema descriptions.

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 action (fetch), the resource (one confirmed ops diagnosis), and the access pattern (by id). This distinguishes it from siblings like yaaif_ops_diagnosis_list and yaaif_ops_diagnosis_create without requiring schema inspection.

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 implies usage when a specific diagnosis id is already known, but it never explicitly names alternatives or says when not to use it. There is no guidance to consult yaaif_ops_diagnosis_list to obtain ids or to prefer other tools for bulk retrieval.

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