yaaif_ops_diagnosis_list

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 leads with 'READ-ONLY' and adds 'newest first' and 'prior confirmed' status, covering the main behavioral expectations for a listing tool. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or failure behavior, but those are less central for a read-only list.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with READ-ONLY and the core list semantics. Every sentence contributes a constraint or workflow context, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the definition still covers the invocation essentials: action, ordering, parameter cardinality, and correct place in the triage workflow. It is somewhat thin on return shape and the effect of summary_only or limits in this list context, but the information most likely to prevent a mis-call is present.

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 coverage is only 43%, and the three ID parameters have no schema descriptions; the description compensates with the critical 'exactly one of' cardinality rule. Other parameters like limit, max_chars, max_items, and summary_only are left to schema descriptions or parameter names, so the compensation is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

States a concrete action ('list'), the object ('prior confirmed ops diagnoses'), and result ordering ('newest first'). The READ-ONLY framing and 'confirmed' qualifier distinguish it from siblings like yaaif_ops_diagnosis_get and yaaif_ops_diagnosis_create. This is a specific verb+resource definition with no ambiguity.

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?

Gives explicit workflow context: 'Call before yaaif_ops_analyze so prior findings inform triage.' It also constrains invocation to exactly one of the three run/session IDs. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or name alternative get/create tools, so it falls just short of full exclusions.

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