diagnose_chain_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: partial-failure modes, lag-depth classification, null behavior for chain and mempool, structured error code RPC_UNREACHABLE, and automatic docs citations. This goes beyond what the annotations alone communicate, though it does not cover every edge case like rate limiting.

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 appropriately sized for the composite tool's complexity and uses clear labeled sections: composite purpose, when to call, input requirements, and output. It front-loads the most important information and every section contributes necessary details without fluff.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly documents the return shape including status enum values, null handling, and error behavior. It covers invocation context, parameter semantics, and failure modes, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 already documents include_tx_pool with type, description, and default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds decision guidance by explaining when to set it to false ('when you only need chain-tip status'), which is genuinely useful semantic context 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?

Description states a specific composite operation—running a four-step RPC chain (DERO.Ping → DERO.GetInfo → DERO.GetHeight → DERO.GetTxPool)—and names the output as a narrative health report. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling primitive tools like dero_daemon_ping and dero_get_info by emphasizing it is the composite that should be used for health investigations.

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?

Explicit 'When to call' section lists concrete user intents ('is the node healthy', 'is it synced', 'what is the current state of the chain'). It also tells agents to PREFER this over manually chaining the four primitives, giving a clear alternative and rationale.

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