Get diagnostics config

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context that the config is "sanitized" and returned as JSON, but it does not explain authentication needs, what fields are sanitized, or how complete the returned config is.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately compact, though its terseness contributes to gaps elsewhere.

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 diagnostics-config getter with no output schema and completely undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It does not explain the return shape beyond "JSON," nor how the three input fields should be used, leaving the agent under-equipped to 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 schema has three parameters at 0% description coverage, with generic names `form`, `params`, and `json_body`. The description provides no parameter guidance at all, so an agent cannot infer what these inputs mean or when to supply them.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Get sanitized server config as JSON for diagnostics." It clearly says what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish it from nearby siblings such as `vaultwarden_get_diagnostics_http` or `vaultwarden_config`.

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 phrase "for diagnostics" implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of related config or diagnostics endpoints. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.

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