debug_diagnose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return structure (config, findings, suggestions) and the configOnly behavior, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires special permissions, or how it handles errors. As a diagnostic tool, this lack of clarity is a notable gap.

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 structured with a brief intro, then the core purpose, then parameter-specific usage. It is front-loaded with the main action and target. The first sentence about Arch is somewhat broad but not wasteful. Overall, it is concise enough and well-organized for the number of modes it covers.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what to expect, which it does at a high level ('Returns config, findings, and suggestions'). It also covers the two diagnostic targets and the configOnly shortcut. However, it does not explain the impact of the 'depth' parameter or what constitutes 'findings' and 'suggestions', leaving some ambiguity for an agent that needs to interpret results 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the complementary use of sessionId vs agentName ('Provide sessionId for session diagnostics or agentName for agent config diagnostics') and the purpose of configOnly ('inspect only config... without running full diagnostics'). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the individual property descriptions.

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 diagnostic analysis') and the resource ('an agent or session'), distinguishing between session and agent config diagnostics. It also mentions the return content ('config, findings, and suggestions'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from several sibling diagnostic tools (e.g., debug_analyze_session, debug_get_current_state), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: 'Provide sessionId for session diagnostics or agentName for agent config diagnostics.' It also gives a specific alternative mode via configOnly, referencing the old debug_inspect behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool relative to the many sibling diagnostics, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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