Diagnose LM Studio

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

The description explicitly states 'non-mutating', which is a key behavioral trait (safe, read-only operation). However, with no annotations present, the description carries full burden and does not disclose what the diagnostic suite actually checks, whether it is resource-intensive, or how long it might run. It adds some value beyond the schema by claiming non-mutation but remains thin.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Run', and every word contributes meaning. No filler or redundancy. It is appropriately terse for a 0-parameter tool.

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?

While the output schema covers returned data, the description does not explain what the diagnostic suite includes or how it differs from other LM Studio tools, leaving a notable gap for an agent to choose correctly among many siblings. It is adequate but lacks specific context about coverage or use cases.

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 and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on the action rather than param details. Baseline of 4 applies for 0 params.

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 clearly states the action ('Run a diagnostic suite') and the target ('local LM Studio'), with the qualifier 'high-level' and 'non-mutating' adding scope. It distinguishes from more specific sibling tools such as lmstudio_status or lmstudio_test_inference by implying a broader, overarching diagnostic suite, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lmstudio_status, lmstudio_security_audit, or lmstudio_test_endpoints. The phrase 'high-level' hints at a general health check but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or mention of excluded scenarios.

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