get_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the operation is non-destructive ('without writing permanent files'), and thoroughly describes the return structure: 'Always returns JSON with: state (normal/degraded/review_recommended), selected_body, segmentation_path, client_hint, confidence, fallback_used, and warnings.' It also details conditional keys (stripped_images only when images removed, attachments only when eligible), providing comprehensive insight into output behavior without relying on annotations.

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 well-structured and concise: it opens with the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, and ends with a precise list of return keys and conditional behaviors. Each sentence adds value, there is no fluff, and the most critical information (non-destructive, purpose, use cases) is front-loaded.

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?

While the description thoroughly explains the return format and gives usage context, it leaves the 13 parameters completely undocumented. Given the tool's complexity (multiple enums, boolean toggles) and the lack of schema descriptions, an agent would not be able to correctly configure parameters without external knowledge. The output schema exists (per context signals) and the description explains return values, but the absence of parameter semantics makes the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 13 parameters. While the description mentions some related behaviors (e.g., conditional keys for stripped images and attachments), it does not explain what parameters like 'preset', 'thread_mode', 'strip_signatures', or 'include_raw_html' actually control. The agent is left to infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for a tool with this many options. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Inspect email quality and structure without writing permanent files.' It specifies the verb ('inspect'), the resource ('email quality and structure'), and the non-destructive nature. It also names use cases ('assess conversion quality before committing, or to troubleshoot problematic .eml files'), which effectively distinguishes it from the sibling conversion tools (convert_eml, convert_eml_to_bundle, convert_directory) that perform transformations rather than inspection.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use this to assess conversion quality before committing, or to troubleshoot problematic .eml files.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the sibling conversion tools as alternatives, relying on the implicit inference that conversion tools are for transforming files while this inspects them. A slight improvement would be naming the alternatives directly, so 4.

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