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, yet it discloses nothing about what the tool does with the error text, whether it is read-only, what it returns, or any limits. The only content beyond the name is an alias list, which is not behavioral context.

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 and front-loaded, so there is no padding to trim. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness — the single line conveys almost no operative 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 single-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum explain what kind of diagnosis is produced and how to act on it. As written, an agent cannot tell what the call accomplishes or what it returns.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Sanitized error or log excerpt'), so the schema already explains it. The description adds no syntax, format, or sanitization caveats beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.

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 namespaced restatement of the tool name: 'MediaSFU Unity :: runtime.diagnose (diagnostic)'. It tells the agent the platform (Unity) but not what the diagnostic actually does — it analyzes runtime errors, returns fixes, or checks SDK state — and gives no differentiation from siblings like fix.suggest or runtime.readiness.diagnose.

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 when-to-use guidance is present. Nothing indicates when runtime.diagnose should be chosen over sibling diagnostics such as env.preflight, fix.suggest, or runtime.readiness.diagnose, nor what prerequisites (e.g., needing an error excerpt first) apply.

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