ynab_diagnostic_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of health, cache, etc., provides context but doesn't significantly expand on behavioral traits. No contradictions.

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 concise, starting with a clear one-line purpose followed by a well-structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 7 optional boolean parameters, one enum, and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meanings. It is complete for a diagnostic tool, though no output schema details beyond 'diagnostics object'.

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%, but the description lists all parameters with their purpose, defaults, and for response_format, the enum values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the empty schema descriptions.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'comprehensive diagnostic information about the MCP server', listing categories (health, cache, delta, security). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ynab_clear_cache or data retrieval 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?

The description implies usage for diagnostics but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. Sibling differentiation is implicit through the tool's unique function, but no guidelines are given.

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