diagnose

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the tool runs even when FreeCAD is unreachable, and 'dismiss' closes the blocking modal via Cancel with 'nothing confirmed'. That side-effect disclosure goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause, then what it probes, then per-parameter notes. The Args block and operation_help reference are well-structured; slight redundancy in phrasing but nothing wasteful.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers both parameters plus the failure-state usage context. For a two-param diagnostic tool this is nearly complete; only explicit alternative routing is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: host is explained as defaulting to the server's --host, and dismiss is explained as closing the modal dialog ('Cancel, nothing confirmed'). Both parameters gain meaning not present in the schema.

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+outcome ('Find out why CADPilot cannot reach FreeCAD') and enumerates exactly what it probes (RPC port, process, addon install, its logs). This is unambiguous and separable from siblings like inspect_freecad or get_addon_log, which address narrower concerns.

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?

Clearly frames the context: use it to diagnose unreachable FreeCAD, and it 'works while FreeCAD is down', which tells the agent it is safe to run in the failure state. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or when-not-to-use condition, so it's clear but not fully routing.

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