diagnose_error

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It indicates a search operation (read-only) but does not state whether it is safe, idempotent, or requires specific permissions. It also does not clarify how parameters interact (AND/OR logic) or what happens when no parameters are provided.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding. No unnecessary information.

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?

For a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on default behavior, output format, and parameter interaction. It is adequate for straightforward use but leaves gaps for complex scenarios.

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 clear parameter descriptions (errorCode and errorName with examples). The tool description adds the context 'diagnose' but does not explain parameter interaction or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.

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's purpose: diagnosing error codes/names by searching for references and throw locations in the GitLab codebase. The verb 'diagnose' and the resource 'error code/error name' are specific, and the scope is well-defined. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'diagnose_frontend' or 'gitlab_search_code', though their names imply different scopes.

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 use when an error code or name is known and needs to be traced in the codebase. No explicit guidance is given on when not to use this tool or which alternative to choose (e.g., gitlab_search_code for general searches). Missing prerequisites or required parameter combinations.

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