Diagnose the setup

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

The annotations only carry readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only' while adding substantive context: the full checklist of failure classes it surfaces, including parser-unreadable files and orphan keys. It does not mention performance characteristics on large projects or whether it stops at first failure, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the purpose, then lists scope, then closes with the imperative 'Run this first' and 'Read-only.' The mid-sentence enumeration is long but each item earns its place as a distinct diagnostic target; slightly tighter grouping would read better.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers when to run it and what it checks. The only missing piece is how it relates to the nearest sibling (verbaly_status) for an agent deciding between a health check and a status query.

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 optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains `root` and its default. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Diagnose') and a scoped resource ('a Verbaly project end to end') and then enumerates exactly what is inspected: config file, catalog files and their JSON, bundler plugin, generated types, unreadable files, a bad `t` import, orphan keys, and check failures. This breadth of enumerated checks makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like verbaly_status or verbaly_missing.

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?

'Run this first when something does not work' gives a clear triggering condition and a priority ordering relative to other tools. It does not explicitly name an alternative or a when-not-to-use case (e.g. versus verbaly_status for a healthy project), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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