diagnose_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the exact probes performed (processes, port ownership, HTTP response) and that the output includes a verdict enum (healthy / degraded / port conflict) plus concrete issues. It leaves unstated that the tool is strictly read-only with no side effects and says nothing about runtime cost or privileges needed, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A single densely packed sentence, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the specific checks. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated or padded.

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 with an output schema already present, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide and invoke: scope, what is probed, and the shape of the verdict. It correctly does not re-explain return values that the output schema covers.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not waste words inventing parameter semantics, which is correct.

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 (full health check) and a specific resource (local XAMPP/WAMP stack), then enumerates exactly what is inspected: process status, port ownership on 80/8080/443/3306, and localhost HTTP reachability. The 'full' aggregate framing implicitly contrasts with the narrower siblings (check_port, read_error_logs) without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the broad sweep you run before drilling into check_port or read_error_logs, but the description never states when to prefer this over those siblings or when not to run it. No prerequisites or conditions are given. Minimum viable, not explicit routing.

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