Shareable diagnosis report

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it returns a clean Markdown report and includes specific probe types (DNS, reachability, TLS, HTTP timing, global probes). This complements the annotations well without contradiction.

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 concise: two sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the purpose and output format, then lists contents efficiently.

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 the complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, output format, and contents. It mentions 'local context' but does not elaborate, which is a minor gap. Overall, sufficient for automated invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (target, include_global). The description mentions 'optional global probes' but adds no further detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool runs a comprehensive battery of probes and returns a Markdown report for bug reports. It lists specific areas like DNS, reachability, TLS, HTTP timing, and optional global probes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual checks. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings.

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 the tool is for obtaining a full diagnostic report for support tickets, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., for specific checks like dns_lookup or http_probe). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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