app_get_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The phrase 'without touching the design' signals a read-only diagnostic, and the return list discloses key outputs including round_trip_ms being None when Altium is down. It does not explicitly clarify whether workspace files are only read or how auth/error conditions behave, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the description is organized into scope, diagnostic details, and returns. It is somewhat verbose because the Returns section repeats fields likely present in the output schema, but the parenthetical about stale request files adds useful diagnostic meaning.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is checked, that it does not touch the design, and what key return fields mean. It could be stronger by clarifying side effects on workspace files, permission assumptions, and explicit routing among sibling diagnostic 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?

This tool has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it reports health of the MCP bridge, workspace, and Altium link, and enumerates diagnostic signals such as version match, IPC round-trip time, and workspace file counts. It is clearly a diagnostic snapshot tool, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as app_get_status, app_ping, or app_diag_workspace.

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?

It gives clear usage context: one call to diagnose plumbing without touching the design, and it explains that stale request files indicate a dead or wedged poller. However, it does not name an alternative tool or explicitly state when not to use this one, so it falls short of the highest level.

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