server_diagnose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Diagnose' implies a safe read, but it doesn't state that it is read-only, whether it requires elevated permissions, or what form the troubleshooting output takes. Minimal disclosure for a zero-annotation tool.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Well-sized for a no-parameter tool.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description needn't explain return values, but 'provide troubleshooting info' is vague about what an agent will actually receive, leaving the diagnostic output underspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to convey; the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately doesn't waste space describing inputs that don't exist.

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 (Diagnose) and resource (current ServerQuery connection permissions) plus an auxiliary output (troubleshooting info). Clear what it does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the neighboring perm_overview or server_info 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?

Only an implied usage context ('troubleshooting') with no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternatives among the many permission-related siblings (perm_overview, perm_list, client_perm). An agent must guess when to reach for this over perm_overview.

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