web_diagnose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the concrete things it inspects plus a useful security note that proxy credentials are redacted. It also signals that the probe performs a live connectivity check. It stops short of stating that the tool is read-only/no-side-effects and how the probe toggles network access.

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 dense sentence with the diagnostic scope front-loaded and zero filler. Every listed item earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description adequately covers what the tool reports. It is nearly complete, missing only a note on when to invoke it relative to its siblings.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must supply the meaning of the lone "probe" parameter, and it does by calling it "an optional live connectivity probe." It does not clarify the default (true) or what changes when probe is false, keeping it just short of full coverage.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Diagnose") with a specific resource ("the local setup") and enumerates exactly what is inspected: resolved proxy, TLS mode, browser availability, search engines, and an optional connectivity probe. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling web_search and web_fetch action tools.

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 for troubleshooting setup when search/fetch misbehave, but the description never states when to run it, when not to, or that it should precede using web_search/web_fetch. No explicit routing or prerequisites are given.

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