flexsim_diagnose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it declares read-only behavior and explicitly states 'never runs write scripts', a meaningful safety guarantee. It also discloses the implementation dependency (utility/doctor.py) and the scope of checks, though it says nothing about failure modes or what happens when a check cannot complete.

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?

Two tight sentences with the read-only guarantee front-loaded and the check list following. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant fact leads.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers scope, safety, and the checks performed. The minor gaps are default parameter behavior and the relationship to the overlapping bridge_status tool.

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 single 'checks' array parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. Enumerating the available checks (port, window/poll age, bridge ping, FlexSimPy import, template) effectively reveals the accepted values. It does not state the default (presumably all checks) when the array is omitted.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('environment diagnosis') and enumerates the exact checks performed, so an agent knows precisely what it gets back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related flexsim_bridge_status sibling, which covers overlapping ground.

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 use case (pre-flight/environment troubleshooting) is implied by 'diagnosis' and the check list, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer flexsim_bridge_status or another status tool instead.

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