Run Diagnostic Ps

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is partly free; the description reinforces this and adds genuinely new information about blocked command classes. However, it does not say what actually happens when a command is blocked (error, empty result, exception), what identity/environment the commands run under, or how the timeout parameter manifests behaviorally — meaningful gaps for a tool that executes arbitrary-ish input.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the capability and closed with the hard constraint. No filler, no redundancy, and the security boundary lands before the agent commits to a call.

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 explanation is not required, and the two-sentence scope definition is enough to attempt a call. But for a tool that runs code on the host, the definition leaves out timeout semantics, the failure mode for blocked commands, and execution context — gaps an agent would want resolved before invoking it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does: the cmdlet examples implicitly illustrate the accepted shape of `command`, but nothing states whether pipelines, multiple statements, or parameters are allowed. The `timeout_seconds` parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving half the schema undocumented in both structured and natural-language form.

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 verb and resource (run read-only diagnostic PowerShell queries) and pins down scope with concrete allowed cmdlet examples (Get-Service, Get-Process, Test-NetConnection, etc.), so an agent knows exactly what execution domain this covers. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like ping_host or dns_lookup, which an agent could reasonably pick instead for connectivity checks.

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 definition gives clear positive context (diagnostic read-only queries, with example cmdlets) and an explicit negative boundary (mutating commands and script injection are strictly blocked). It does not route the agent to alternative tools for cases the boundary excludes, so it sits at 4 rather than 5.

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