diagnostics_supported_features

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

The description indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, but with no annotations provided, it does not detail behavioral nuances such as what exact registry counts are returned, what underlying data is accessed, or any potential performance implications.

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 description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded, containing all necessary information without any extraneous content.

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 simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, it does not elaborate on what kind of output to expect (e.g., counts per protocol), which could aid an agent in deciding whether this tool meets its needs.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool returns 'registry counts' related to 'dissection support', which provides context beyond the empty schema. According to the baseline rule for 0 parameters, this is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: 'Return registry counts that summarize local Wireshark dissection support.' It uses a specific verb ('Return') and describes the resource ('registry counts') and context ('local Wireshark dissection support'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like diagnostics_check_install.

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?

The description implies this tool is used to retrieve registry counts for assessing Wireshark dissection support, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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