server_transport_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description itself signals a read-only diagnostic operation through the verb 'Describe,' and notes that it covers security posture and native gaps. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool performs no mutation, requires no permissions, or only reports the active state, so some behavioral burden is unmet.

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 with no filler, listing the main report areas compactly. It could be clearer about 'native gaps,' but it earns its place and avoids redundancy.

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?

For a parameterless diagnostic with an output schema, the description covers the major topics (behavior, compatibility, security, gaps) and is callable as-is. Some terms such as 'native gaps' and 'compatibility' are left undefined, but the output schema can carry the return-value detail.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description's mention of the four report areas is the only relevant semantic context, matching the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 uses the specific verb 'Describe' and identifies a distinct resource: active MCP transport behavior, compatibility, security posture, and native gaps. This is enough to differentiate it from sibling status/protocol tools such as server_lifecycle_status and server_protocol_contract, though it never names them explicitly.

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 phrase 'active MCP transport behavior' implies the tool is for diagnosing the current transport configuration, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not contrast it with sibling tools like server_protocol_contract. The intended usage is inferable rather than stated.

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