Full Diagnosis

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not restate safety. It does add that the tool runs multiple diagnostic categories, which is useful context about its scope. However, it does not disclose potential performance costs, output size, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply, so it only modestly extends the behavioral profile.

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, efficient sentence that lists the tool's components. It is front-loads the key term 'complete codebase diagnosis' and then enumerates specifics. There is no fluff, though it could be slightly more explicit about the action (e.g., 'runs all scanners and analyzes').

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 tool's complexity (aggregating many scanners) and absence of an output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not mention what the result looks like, whether it produces a report or scores, potential runtime, or any warnings. It also lacks any rationale for when to use this full diagnosis over more targeted tools, leaving the agent without sufficient context for a safe and effective 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 only parameter 'path' is fully described in the schema as 'Absolute path to the repository root', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about how the path is used or any constraints, so it does not improve on 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 it performs a complete codebase diagnosis and enumerates specific components: quantum scoring, git hotspots, dead exports, type coverage. This gives a good sense of scope and differentiates it from more targeted siblings. However, 'all scanners' is somewhat generic and the overall purpose could be more explicit about what 'diagnosis' entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like auto_diagnose or specific scanners. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this comprehensive tool is appropriate.

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