diagnostic_info

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable read operations. The description adds value by specifying 'comprehensive' diagnostic information, suggesting it returns detailed data beyond basic status. However, it doesn't detail what 'comprehensive' includes beyond the parameters, or mention rate limits or auth needs.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get comprehensive diagnostic information') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 low complexity (simple boolean parameters) and the presence of annotations (covering safety) and an output schema (handling return values), the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states the purpose, though it could better explain parameter semantics given the 0% schema coverage. For a diagnostic tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'comprehensive diagnostic information' but doesn't explain the six boolean parameters (e.g., what 'include_memory' or 'include_security' entail). This leaves semantics unclear, though the default values in the schema offer some guidance. Baseline is 3 as the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive diagnostic information about the MCP server'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are focused on YNAB financial operations like transactions, accounts, and budgets, while this tool provides server 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?

The description implies usage for obtaining diagnostic information, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no sibling tools for diagnostics, so no comparison is needed, but it doesn't mention prerequisites or specific contexts where this tool is appropriate.

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