apache_diagnose

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds that multiple Apache data sources are correlated plus an optional HTTP probe. However, it does not explain what the probe does, whether it requires a reachable target, or what kind of diagnostic output is produced.

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 compact sentence with the [READ] marker front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a concise summary, though its brevity contributes to missing parameter and usage detail.

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?

This is a complex aggregation tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, yet the description is only one terse line. It does not explain target semantics, probe behavior, prerequisites, or what the diagnostic correlation contains.

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 only parameter, target, has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description. The phrase 'optional HTTP probe' hints at target use but does not define whether target is a host, URL, or something else, leaving the parameter undocumented.

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 clear diagnostic action: correlating version, config, vhosts, modules, and an optional HTTP probe. This distinguishes it from narrower siblings such as apache_version or apache_vhosts by making it an aggregate diagnostic tool, though it does not fully describe the resulting diagnosis.

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 about when to use this aggregate diagnostic instead of siblings like apache_config_check, apache_probe, or apache_server_status. The optional HTTP probe is mentioned but without conditions for enabling it or exclusions.

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