chart_get_state_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose read-only behavior via 'NO SIDE EFFECTS' and describes what is inspected ('authoritative' liveness/queue/freshness data). It does not cover permissions, response shape, or any caveats about the diagnostic values.

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 tight sentences: capability, then a front-loaded WHEN TO USE trigger list, then a side-effects disclaimer. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it names the returned fields and the safety profile. Only the exact return format and any error semantics are left implicit.

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 the schema contributes nothing and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Get') and resource ('diagnostic state of chart') and enumerates the contents: generation ID, CDP connection status, task queue depths. Clear enough to distinguish from the sibling chart_get_state, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

An explicit 'WHEN TO USE' block names three concrete triggers (diagnosing connection liveness, queue backpressure, verifying generation freshness). No 'when not' clause or named alternative, but the context is unambiguous.

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