diagnose

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful output context ('returns copy-pasteable fixes for anything wrong') and the report scope, though it repeats the read-only hint and omits auth prerequisites or rate limits.

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 tightly written sentences: the report contents are front-loaded in a colon list, followed by safety/output note and the call-to-action. No filler or repetition.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it lists the report sections and says it returns copy-pasteable fixes. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 has zero input parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters.

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 diagnostic resource (server health report) and enumerates the covered areas (runtime, config, keys, token status, scope grants, API enablement). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools, but the diagnostic purpose is clear against the discover/account-management siblings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this to diagnose auth/config failures', giving a clear trigger context. It does not list exclusions or alternative tools for related but different diagnostics, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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