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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return structure (categorized issues, severity, fix_plan_id, health_score), notes that fix_plan_id is callable via execute(), and implies a read-only diagnostic behavior. However, it does not clarify whether the check has side effects or how the deep parameter affects execution, though the schema provides 'slower'.

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, information-dense paragraph with no fluff. Each sentence contributes: what it does, usage modes, return categories, and scoring. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (categorized issues, severity, fix_plan_id, health_score). It could be more explicit about parameter combinations (e.g., what happens if both symptom and kit are provided, or neither) and the 'execute()' reference is ambiguous without cross-tool context, but overall it is nearly complete for a diagnostic tool.

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?

The schema covers only 33% of parameters (deep has a description). The description compensates by explaining 'symptom' (free-text) and 'kit' (scoped check), and implicitly that these are alternative modes. It does not add detail on 'deep' beyond the schema's 'slower', but overall the description provides meaning for the two primary parameters.

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 states a specific diagnostic purpose: 'Runtime + theme + settings harmony check' with concrete examples like 'cart drawer feels slow'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings (browse, explain, plan, recommend) by focusing on issue detection and providing categorized results (theme_compat, settings_conflict, etc.).

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 gives clear usage context: free-text symptom OR kit-scoped check, with examples. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the two modes cover the primary scenarios and the sibling names imply different purposes.

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