diagnose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly mentions the auto-clearing of stuck deploy locks, a non-obvious mutating behavior, which is important for an ostensibly diagnostic tool. It does not mention other potential side effects, but the main behavioral trait is covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific checks and a clear usage directive. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers its actions and side effects well. It lacks an explicit mention of the return format (e.g., a health report), but for a 0-parameter diagnostic tool, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter information to add. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description provides no parameter-related details because none are needed.

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 a specific verb ('Run a comprehensive health check') on a specific resource ('VibeSharing setup') and enumerates the exact checks performed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_token or resolve_target that handle individual concerns.

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 provides a clear use case ('Use this to troubleshoot issues') and implies it is a broad diagnostic tool while siblings are more focused. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, but the context is clear.

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