Diagnostic du système

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the scope of what is inspected and that the result includes the corrective action for each absent component, which shapes how an agent should interpret and act on the output. It does not say whether the check is slow, blocking, or requires local permissions, so it is not a 5.

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 the first clause, followed by the component list and the remediation promise. The enumeration is long but each item is informative about coverage, and there is no filler. A slightly tighter grouping of the components would make it easier to scan.

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 no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining burden is scope — which the description fully enumerates, including the remediation content of the response. Only minor operational details (runtime cost, whether any components require configuration to be probed) are absent.

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 there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly concentrates on scope and output rather than inventing inputs.

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 resource — the status of all system components — and enumerates them (database, disk space, network mode, OCR, LanguageTool, local model, AI providers, source keys, Word, Claude Desktop, backups). This is clearly a system-wide environment diagnostic, distinct in kind from the sibling checks that operate on documents or references. It lacks an explicit naming of a sibling to contrast with, so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to run when diagnosing environment or configuration problems, since it also reports the fix for each missing component. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over the document-level checks, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., run before other tools if components are unavailable).

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