Get GenCC Diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, etc. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it's a small payload suitable for polling, and it echoes version information for drift detection, all consistent with annotations.

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 key information, no redundant wording. Every sentence earns its place, clearly explaining purpose and use case.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema (implied to be rich), the description is fully complete. It explains the return values comprehensively and how they can be used for drift detection, leaving no gap in understanding.

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 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the return payload contains (run date, etags, counts, server versions), which helps the agent understand the output without needing to inspect the output schema.

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 specifies exactly what the tool reports—build provenance, data freshness, counts, schema version, and drift detection—using specific verbs like 'report', 'echo', and 'poll'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_server_capabilities by contrasting its lightweight payload.

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 states the tool can be used for drift detection instead of re-fetching the full capabilities document, providing clear context. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the usage is well implied.

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