Get MetaDome Diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the operation is local ('WITHOUT calling MetaDome'), and it specifies the exact data returned (build info, cache stats, runtime metrics, data versions, capabilities hash), which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 paragraph, but it is information-dense and front-loaded with the key purpose. It includes a signature line. It is not overly verbose, though a bullet list could improve scanability slightly.

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 one parameter (fully defined in schema), clear annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, what is returned, and usage scenario. No gaps are present.

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 100%, so the description does not need to add much. The parameter 'response_mode' is fully documented in the schema with enum values and a default. The description only mentions it in a signature line without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and clearly identifies the resource ('local runtime health') and the unique differentiator 'WITHOUT calling MetaDome'. It lists all key outputs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_server_capabilities' or 'resolve_transcript'.

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 gives explicit usage: 'Use this to confirm cache state or diagnose a misconfigured server.' This provides clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling tools cover distinct functions, so the guidance is adequate.

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