get_proc_diagnostics

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' which conveys a key safety trait, and explains per-section failure handling ('per-section failures land in the errors field'). This goes beyond a vague 'gets data' and gives the agent confidence about side-effect-free execution.

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?

Three sentences total, front-loaded with the primary function, and every sentence adds useful information (what, how to filter, safety/error behavior). No fluff.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers the essential aspects: return content, selection mechanism, safety, and error strategy. The output schema is present, so no need to describe return fields. It adequately prepares the agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 description repeats the schema's parameter guidance about comma-separated sections and empty=all, but adds no new information beyond what the input schema already documents. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not deepen the parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns deep /proc diagnostics' and enumerates exact sections (interrupts, softirqs, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling get_* tools by explicitly framing this as a bundle of /proc diagnostics for kernel-level debugging.

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 final sentence gives explicit usage context: 'Use for kernel-level debugging.' While no alternatives are named, this clearly positions the tool for broad kernel diagnostics rather than specific resource queries. The comma-separated subset hint also tells when to use it for selected sections.

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