get_diagnosis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful high-level view of the returned content, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, error behavior, or side effects. It also does not contradict the 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?

One concise sentence with no filler or repetition. The verb is front-loaded and the four return components are listed compactly, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 a single well-documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the definition is largely sufficient for a simple fetch-by-ID operation. The enumeration of components communicates the aggregate nature of the diagnosis, though adding workflow context about when to retrieve a completed diagnosis would make it even more complete.

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 100%, with the only parameter already documented as an identifier returned by start_diagnosis. The tool description itself adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource as an aggregate of four concrete components: profile, preflight checks, probe evidence, and cited issues. This makes the tool's function fairly clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like list_diagnoses or start_diagnosis.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only indirect hint is in the parameter description ('Identifier returned by start_diagnosis'), which implies a workflow, but the main description does not state when get_diagnosis is the right choice compared to list_diagnoses or the other sibling tools.

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