net_diagnose

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

The description states the tool is 'read-only', providing some safety context, but it doesn't disclose failure modes, side effects, or behavioral details like what happens if the target is unreachable. With no annotations, more context is needed.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and front-loads minimal information. It could be considered under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 the lack of annotations, low schema coverage, and missing parameter explanations, the description is incomplete. Although an output schema exists, the description does not hint at return values or other context.

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 description does not mention the single parameter 'target' at all, despite 0% schema coverage. The parameter's purpose, default behavior, and acceptable values are left entirely to the schema.

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 clearly states the tool runs read-only SSH/network diagnostics, indicating a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_remote which likely executes arbitrary commands, but it doesn't explicitly compare.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_remote or init_* tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or conditions.

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