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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing — not whether it is read-only, what it returns, whether it is safe to call repeatedly, or what state it inspects. The single word 'diagnostic' implies inspection but is too thin to count as disclosure.

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?

It is short, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than efficiency — the single sentence conveys no actionable information beyond the name already shown to the agent.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a name that could mean anything from log parsing to SDK handshake inspection, the description leaves the agent unable to know what to expect back or when invoking it is appropriate.

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%: the single required 'errorText' parameter is documented in the schema as a 'Sanitized error or log excerpt.' With coverage this high the schema does the work and a baseline of 3 applies, though the description adds nothing about input format or length expectations.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name plus the word 'diagnostic' — a category label rather than a statement of what the tool actually does. It gives no indication of what is diagnosed (connection? SDK init? room state?) and does not distinguish it from siblings like shared::runtime.readiness.diagnose or shared::fix.suggest.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions or exclusions. The agent is given nothing to decide between this tool and the closely named readiness.diagnose sibling.

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