run_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying what the tool checks (6 specific diagnostic areas) and what it returns ('detailed diagnostic report as JSON object'). It doesn't mention performance characteristics, timeouts, or error handling, but provides substantial behavioral context for a diagnostic tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, returns, diagnostic checks, use cases) and each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by combining some lines, but overall it's efficiently organized with no redundant information.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides excellent context: clear purpose, detailed scope of checks, return format, and specific usage guidelines. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating what happens if diagnostics fail or providing example output structure.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's comprehensive diagnostic nature and use cases.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('perform comprehensive system diagnostics', 'runs a complete health check') and identifies the target system ('MCPOSprint setup'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive diagnostics rather than specific functions like printing or file creation.

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 provides three specific use cases in a 'Use this when:' section: first-time setup, troubleshooting printing/Notion issues, and verifying configuration after changes. This gives clear guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives like test_printer_connection or other siblings.

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