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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not what diagnostic output looks like, not whether it analyzes/fixes, not prerequisites. One parenthetical word cannot substitute for behavioral 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?

Extremely short, arguably too short rather than wasteful, but it is front-loaded with the name only. Under-specification is the problem, not verbosity.

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 diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the diagnosis returns or does. It provides nothing beyond the name, so an agent cannot predict behavior.

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 100% and the single errorText parameter is well-described in the schema ('Sanitized error or log excerpt'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about how errorText is used or processed.

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?

"runtime.diagnose (diagnostic)" essentially restates the tool name in parentheses; no specific verb like analyze/interpret is given. It names a resource (runtime diagnose) but does not differentiate purpose from siblings like fix.suggest or runtime.readiness.diagnose, or distinguish the Vue scope from the many same-named siblings across other frameworks.

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 on when to use this tool versus fix.suggest, env.preflight, or shared::runtime.readiness.diagnose. The user must infer its role entirely from the name.

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