update_self_diagnosis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only diagnostic through 'Returns', and it lists the returned health fields, but it does not explicitly state read-only safety, permission needs, or side effects. The name 'update_self_diagnosis' adds slight ambiguity because it could be mistaken for an update action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It directly states what the tool returns and the key data fields.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description reasonably covers the return values an agent can expect. It is nearly complete for a simple zero-parameter diagnostic. However, it does not clarify how or when this diagnostic should be used relative to sibling diagnostic tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. This meets the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific read verb and resource: 'Returns the self-update health state', and it enumerates the key fields (current version, latest available, pending update status). This makes the tool's function clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from diagnostic siblings like lmcp_doctor, lmcp_state, or lmcp_upgrade_diagnostics.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many diagnostic and state-checking siblings in the toolset, an agent receives no routing help. The description only implies a context by describing what it returns.

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