diagnose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists the components checked, which gives good insight into behavior, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the UNC write/read probe creates files or modifies state), nor does it mention any permissions needed. The 'write/read probe' could be a write operation, which is not flagged as non-destructive.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action ('Run a diagnostic sweep') and enumerates specific checks. No wasted words; every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 moderately complex nature of a multi-part diagnostic and the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job explaining the scope of checks and the output format ('pass/fail report'). However, the unexplained 'distro' parameter and lack of side-effect disclosure hold it back from a 5.

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 one optional string parameter 'distro' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention or explain this parameter at all, leaving the agent uncertain whether it is a filter, target, or something else. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of info.

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 a diagnostic sweep') and names concrete resources being checked (distros, UNC reachability, persistent shell, /tmp/wsl-bridge, UNC write/read probe). It clearly distinguishes itself from individual sibling tools like list_distros or check_wsl_status by being a composite health report.

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 for overall environment diagnostics and mentions it returns a pass/fail report, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the individual sibling tools, nor does it list any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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