diagnose_device

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., permissions, response format, side effects) beyond what annotations convey.

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 sentence listing four items, which is concise but lacks structure (e.g., bullets or categorization). Every word serves a purpose, but the listing style could be clearer.

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 output schema exists, the description omits what the tool returns or how diagnostics are presented. The tool's role relative to siblings is implied but not explained, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand its usage.

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 0% and the description does not clarify the device_id parameter—no format, constraints, or relationship to the listed checks is explained.

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 checks bindings, encrypted credential presence, route policy, and LAN read. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and lists distinct diagnostic areas, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_device or refresh_device, though not explicitly contrasting them.

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?

No guidance on when to use diagnose_device versus alternatives such as get_device or discover_lan_devices. No prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria are provided.

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