Get GenCC Diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning ETag/last-modified fields and the 'small payload' nature, which are relevant for client-side caching and polling decisions. No contradictions with the annotations; it builds on them.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence enumerating the report contents and the second explaining the drift-polling use case. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and quickly provides actionable context.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and only a few annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and why a client would use it. It even highlights the drift-detection advantage over a sibling tool, making the contextual picture complete for the agent.

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 parameters, so the schema's 100% coverage makes parameter documentation moot. The description compensates by enumerating the output contents (run date, ETag, counts, schema version, etc.), which is effectively the parameter-semantics guidance for the caller even though no input is needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource (GenCC diagnostics) and the nature of the output (build provenance and data freshness). It lists concrete fields (run date, ETag, counts, schema version) and distinguishes itself from get_server_capabilities by noting it can replace full capability document fetches.

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 explicitly frames the tool's purpose for warm clients to poll for drift, contrasting it with re-fetching the full capabilities document. This gives a clear use case and names the alternative (get_server_capabilities) implicitly. It also conveys that the payload is small, implying a lightweight polling mechanism.

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