Site diagnostics

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: returns active problems by default, severity levels, worst-first ordering, and optional includeAbsent flag. Aligns with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, adding value.

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?

Three sentences, efficient, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately useful details (severity, defaults). No redundant phrasing.

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?

The description sufficiently explains what the tool returns, the states, and the parameter effect. Without an output schema, it provides enough context about severity and ACTIVE filtering. Some format details are absent but acceptable.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters fully. The description reiterates includeAbsent behavior and mentions hostId default via get_hosts, but adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond 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 identifies the tool as retrieving Yandex Webmaster site diagnostics, with specific examples of problem types and severity levels. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by focusing on host-level problems.

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 context on default behavior (active problems only) and how to change it (includeAbsent). It implicitly signals use cases (checking site health) but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for using this vs other tools.

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