diagnose_environment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the diagnostic areas but does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires special permissions. The behavioral implications of 'diagnose' (e.g., side effects, rate limits) are left unclear.

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 that covers multiple points, but it is somewhat dense and lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or clear separation of concerns). It could be more readable.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to cover the input parameter or differentiate from related tools. Given the tool's apparent complexity (multiple diagnostic areas), more context is needed for the agent to invoke it correctly.

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 completely ignores the only parameter 'include_write_probe'. The parameter's purpose and effect are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use it.

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: to diagnose local MCP setup, root access, artifact writes, and public surface discovery. It uses a specific verb ('diagnose') and lists distinct areas, distinguishing it from the many pipeline- and preview-focused sibling tools.

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 this tool instead of alternatives. There is a sibling tool 'run_host_smoke_check' that may overlap but no explicit differentiation or usage context is provided.

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