wb_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adequately reveals what the tool does: pings all WB API hosts, makes light real requests per category, and analyzes token expiry/scopes. The 'light' qualifier helps set expectations about request intensity, though it does not explicitly state side-effect safety or rate-limit impact.

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 compact and front-loaded with the important '[P0]' priority and the immediate action directive 'Run FIRST.' Every clause adds value, and the diagnostic breakdown is efficient without unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the scope of checks, the trigger condition, and the expected diagnostic outcome. It could mention what the result format looks like, but the core decision-making context is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and it correctly focuses on behavior and usage rather than inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Full self-diagnostics' covering host pings, real requests per category, and token analysis. It also distinguishes itself by framing its role as separating a token problem from a category or WB API change, which sets it apart from sibling tools like wb_token_info or wb_degradations.

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 explicitly says 'Run FIRST when a tool misbehaves,' giving a clear trigger condition. It also explains the diagnostic value—separating token problems from category/API changes—though it does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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