plasticity_diagnose

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, local read. The phrase 'without changing a document' reinforces that but adds little new; it also doesn't disclose what a 'reachable window' means or what a failed probe looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource list comes before the non-mutating qualifier, so the agent reads the substance first.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what is reported, and it names both the runtime and window inventory. It is nearly complete, missing only differentiation from the many sibling diagnostic/inspection tools.

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; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 concrete verb ('Report') and two specific resources ('MCP runtime' and 'reachable Plasticity windows'), plus the non-mutating scope. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like plasticity_status, plasticity_list_windows, or plasticity_capabilities, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which diagnostic to pick.

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: 'without changing a document' gestures at a safe diagnostic read, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (plasticity_status, plasticity_list_windows) that an agent would weigh against it.

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