diagnose_sites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behavioral traits: the checks are 'non-writing' (safe/read-only) and run 'concurrently' (parallel execution). It omits scope, duration, permission needs, and whether partial failures are reported, but the safety and concurrency hints are real added value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified rather than truly concise.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotation coverage, 0% parameter description coverage, and no usage guidance, the description leaves too many gaps for a tool that apparently executes multiple checks across sites.

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% for the single site_ids parameter, yet the description never mentions it, its array form, or the 'all' default. The schema's anyOf/default carry the meaning, so the description adds nothing to help an agent select which sites to diagnose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('run ... connectivity and discovery checks') and adds a scope qualifier ('non-writing'). However, it never says 'sites' despite diagnosing across site_ids, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling test_site_connection, which overlaps heavily in intent.

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 guidance on when to use this rather than test_site_connection or get_site, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit hint is 'non-writing', which signals a safe diagnostic but doesn't route the agent among alternatives.

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