ctx_diagnostics

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool runs diagnostics and specifies output areas, which provides some transparency but omits side effects, required permissions, or whether it modifies state. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and lists specific diagnostic areas. Every phrase is necessary.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use it. It could mention whether the output schema includes all listed diagnostic areas, but this is minor.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details beyond the schema. The description explains what the tool does when invoked without arguments, which adds value. Base score 4 for 0-parameter tools.

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 a specific verb 'Run environment diagnostics' and specifies the resource being diagnosed. It lists three diagnostic areas (missing env vars, config issues, health checks), clarifying the scope.

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 use when an agent needs to check the environment's health, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ctx_environment or when not to use it. No exclusions or contextual triggers are provided.

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