diagnose

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

Despite sparse annotations (only openWorldHint), the description voluntarily discloses important behavioral traits: analyze is advisory-only, reveal is opt-in only, and confirm is needed for destructive ops. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it could still elaborate on which specific actions are destructive or how confirmation is triggered.

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 compact and structured: first a one-line purpose, then a dense action list with parameter signatures, then a safety section. Every sentence conveys necessary information without fluff, and the line breaks make it scannable for an agent.

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's complexity (22 parameters, 5 actions) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the purpose, action breakdown, and safety constraints sufficiently. It does not explain return values (unnecessary due to output schema) but adequately orients the agent on the tool's scope and boundaries.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 22 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter well. The description's action list repeats parameter names but adds only marginal semantics (e.g., 'pattern triage on runtime logs' for analyze). This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 synthesizes diagnose views for applications and servers or runs a global fleet scan, then enumerates five distinct actions (app, server, scan, logs, analyze) with their parameter signatures. This provides a specific verb+resource mapping for each action, fully distinguishing it from sibling tools like resource or server.

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 clear intra-tool guidance: analyze is explicitly advisory-only with no restart/redeploy/rollback, and safety notes confirm for destructive ops. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools (e.g., when to use diagnose vs resource or system), so it lacks alternative exclusions but still provides actionable context.

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