diagnose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool diagnoses layers and suggests fixes, but it does not disclose whether it performs active network probes, requires permissions, has timeout or rate-limit behavior, or is strictly read-only.

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 in one clear sentence, followed by only the necessary parameter notes. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

The description gives enough to invoke the tool with target and port, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, for a composite diagnostic surrounded by many single-purpose network siblings, it should explicitly clarify when to use this tool versus those alternatives.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: target is explained as a host name or IP address with an example, and port is explained as the TCP service port with 443 as the website example. The schema defaults are not mentioned, but the core semantics of both parameters are clear.

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 states a specific action and outcome: run a full bottom-up diagnosis against a site and report which layer fails plus how to fix it. The phrase 'full bottom-up diagnosis' implies a composite check distinct from single-purpose siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'against a site' and the target example of a host the user is trying to reach. However, the description never states when to choose this composite diagnostic over siblings like ping, traceroute, dns_lookup, port_check, or http_check.

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