ynab_diagnostic_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety information. The description adds value by specifying the type of information returned (diagnostics object with requested sections) and listing the configurable options. No contradictions with annotations.

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 clear and well-structured with a bullet list of parameters. It is appropriately sized, though the introductory sentence could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 that an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose, all parameters, and the general nature of the output. For a diagnostic tool with multiple optional components, this is complete and sufficient.

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 description must fully document parameters. It does so by listing each boolean parameter with its default and purpose, and the response_format parameter with its enum values and default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only provides types and defaults.

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 it retrieves comprehensive diagnostic information for the MCP server, listing specific areas like health, cache, delta, and security. The tool name and description are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools that handle YNAB data operations (transactions, accounts, budgets, etc.).

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 the tool is for diagnostics, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There is no comparison to other sibling tools or context for choosing this tool over others.

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