Run Diagnostic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and safety. It states that it returns structured results and lists checks, but it never explicitly says whether this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, or whether any special permissions or rate limits apply. The word 'run' could even imply side effects, creating ambiguity.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds detail in a structured list-like fashion. Every sentence earns its place with 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 tool with a single parameter, a clear purpose, and an output schema (which is noted as present), the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool checks and that it returns structured results, leaving the output schema to define return values. The only minor gap is explicit usage guidance, which is already captured under the usage dimension.

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 schema description covers projectId fully ('The project ID to run diagnostics on'). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 given the high schema coverage. No parameter information is missing.

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 ('Run') and clearly identifies the resource ('a comprehensive health diagnostic on a project'). It lists concrete aspects checked (connectivity, recent errors, configuration validity, resource utilization) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_metrics or search_logs by being a holistic diagnostic rather than a focused metric or log query.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need an overall health check of a project—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to prefer search_logs or get_metrics instead. It is adequate but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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