program_diagnostics_tool

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so an agent can infer this is a read-only inspection tool. However, the description provides no behavioral details about computed outputs, formatting, or side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence listing the checkable diagnostics with no redundant 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 focused diagnostic tool with one required parameter and a readOnlyHint, but the description does not state the expected output format, permission prerequisites, or how results are returned, and it offers no guidance on whether to use it before/after other operations.

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 declares exactly one parameter (project_id) with zero property descriptions, and the tool description does not explain the meaning, constraints, or format of this ID. Schema coverage is 0%, far below the 50% threshold, so the description must compensate and does not.

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 diagnostic purpose ('Report duplicate coils...') with a clear verb+resource, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as validate_program or list_symbols.

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 implies a diagnostics context but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor names alternative tools despite a large sibling list.

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