diagnose_environment

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds the 'static' qualifier and the three scopes, which gives some context beyond the annotation, but it does not disclose what the diagnostics actually check, whether failures are possible, or what kind of output is produced.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that starts with the action verb and packs all relevant scope into a compact list. Every word contributes value with no repetition or filler.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or what a successful diagnostic entails. It only names the target areas but does not say whether the result is a report, a list of issues, or a simple pass/fail. For a no-parameter tool, this is an adequate but not complete description.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description correctly avoids referencing any parameters, and with 0-parameter tools the baseline is 4 because there is no extra semantic burden.

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 clearly states the tool runs static environment diagnostics and specifies three target areas (startup, AI provider setup, artifact output paths). It uses a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like probe_runtime_capabilities or export_diagnostic_bundle, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For a tool with many diagnostic-related siblings, this lack of comparative context makes it harder for an agent to choose correctly.

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