gadgets_diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful value by disclosing that output is redacted ('without tokens, state, arguments or raw errors'), which tells the agent the report is sanitized. However, it says nothing about report size, format, or what it does contain.

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 with no filler. The trailing redaction clause is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but it earns its place by signaling sanitized output.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the report contains, yet it only describes what is excluded, not what an agent will actually get back. Annotations cover safety, but the return-value gap leaves the definition only minimally viable.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 verb ('Get') and the object ('an allowlisted support report'), but 'support report' is vague about what diagnostic content is actually returned. It does not differentiate from siblings like gadgets_get_state or gadgets_read_events, so an agent cannot tell why it would pick this over reading state directly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling diagnostics-adjacent tools (get_state, read_events). The description implies a diagnostic/support purpose but gives no trigger condition or exclusion.

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