Report human-input capability status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'never asks the user anything and never blocks,' which clarifies latency and interaction semantics without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the diagnostic output, the second gives precise trigger conditions, and the third reassures about behavior. No redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only diagnostic tool with one optional parameter, the description covers what it reports, when to use it, and its side-effect profile. Without an output schema, it still makes clear what the report will contain. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the single optional 'verbose' parameter already has a clear description in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Diagnostic: report...' and specifies the exact outputs: whether the client supports MCP form elicitation, which fallback mode is configured, and the wait time. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_* tools by stating 'This tool never asks the user anything.'

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?

Explicitly says when to call it: 'when the user asks why a question did not appear, or to verify that this MCP server is actually connected.' It also excludes the ask_* use case by saying it never asks the user anything, giving clear routing guidance.

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