gadgets_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the output profile: the report is allowlisted and excludes tokens, state, arguments, and raw errors, which tells the agent the result is safe to surface and intentionally lossy. It omits access requirements, whether it is strictly read-only, and any rate/size behavior, so it is only partially transparent.

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. Every clause (allowlisted, and the four excluded data classes) carries distinct information the agent cannot get from the empty schema or absent annotations.

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?

For a 0-param tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: what kind of report comes back and that secrets/raw internals are stripped. It does not indicate the report's structure or sections, but the essential safety-relevant framing is present.

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 semantics for the description to compensate for. Baseline for a 0-param tool applies; no misinterpretation is possible.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get an allowlisted support report.' It further characterizes the artifact (a redacted support report), which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like gadgets_get_state and gadgets_read_events. It does not name a sibling or contrast scope explicitly, so it falls 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?

No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives among the five sibling gadgets_* tools. An agent can infer this is a diagnostic/support-export call from the name, but nothing in the description says when to reach for it versus gadgets_get_state or gadgets_read_events.

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