diagnose_run_failure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool aggregates existing data into a diagnosis, which weakly implies read-only behavior, but it does not state whether it modifies state, has side effects, or incurs significant cost. It also does not explain what 'critical messages' are sourced from or whether the tool waits for completion.

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 no wasted words. It clearly states the core action and output, though it sacrifices important detail for brevity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description leaves major gaps: the meaning of all three parameters is unexplained, there is no usage guidance, and there is no indication of preconditions or side effects. For a tool with optional parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it mentions none of run_name, timeout_s, or expect_bitstream. The names give some hint, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema properties, leaving the agent to guess how these parameters affect the diagnosis.

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 ('Aggregate') and resource ('run status, run log tail, and critical messages') and names the output ('structured run failure diagnosis'). It clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinguishable from generic siblings like collect_diagnostic_bundle, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_run_progress, collect_diagnostic_bundle, or validate_diagnostic_bundle. The name and description imply use in the context of a failed run, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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