Diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing redaction behavior ('API keys never shown, only whether one is set'). It also notes the snapshot actively probes providers and hardware, implying latency cost, though it does not state how long the probe takes or how large the output is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence whose key claim ('read-only snapshot for troubleshooting') comes first, followed by the contents and the intended use. The comma-separated inventory is dense but every clause carries information; a bulleted list would read better but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it still previews the payload contents so an agent knows what it is getting. Combined with rich annotations and zero parameters, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No misleading parameter references appear.

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 the specific deliverable ('one read-only snapshot for troubleshooting') and then enumerates exactly what it contains: effective configuration, per-provider detection result, latency and error, benchmark speed cache, and hardware probing. That enumeration clearly separates it from siblings like health_check, system_resources, and fit_check, which each cover only part of this picture.

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?

Gives a concrete use context ('for troubleshooting') and an explicit next action ('paste its output into bug reports'), so an agent knows the intended scenario. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use it or pointing to alternatives such as health_check for a quick liveness probe, which keeps it from a 5.

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