diagnose_system

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as a safe read operation. Beyond that, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it lists the two diagnostic actions and explicitly states the systemd-only limitation. This helps the agent understand what the tool checks (failed services) and retrieves (boot logs), and under what conditions it applies. No contradictions 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with a clear [MONITORING] tag upfront. It packs the core purpose, the available actions, and the systemd constraint into a minimal number of words without redundancy. Every part earns its place, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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 tool with low complexity (one required enum param, one optional param, no output schema), the description is sufficient to understand what it does and under what constraints. The absence of an output schema means return values are not explicitly described, but the actions are simple enough that an agent can infer the likely diagnostic output. Slight deductions for not mentioning any error conditions or prerequisites beyond systemd.

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 schema already covers both parameters (action, lines) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds semantic meaning to the action enum values by explaining what each action does ('check for failed systemd services' and 'retrieve recent boot logs'), which is not present in the schema's generic description. This elevates the score above baseline.

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: 'Unified system diagnostics for systemd-based systems' and enumerates the two specific actions (failed_services and boot_logs) with brief explanations. This distinguishes it as a diagnostic tool focused on systemd systems, setting it apart from siblings like get_system_info or run_system_health_check.

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 a clear environment constraint ('Works on systemd-based systems only') which implies when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't say 'for non-systemd systems, use X' or compare with run_system_health_check. Thus, usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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