Diagnose server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that it aggregates resource status, domains, and suggested next actions, which goes beyond a simple read operation. No contradiction 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then uses a colon to list the tool's outputs. Every word contributes value, and it is neither verbose nor under-specified.

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 one parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what the tool returns. However, it could be more complete by detailing the format of the status breakdown or the nature of the suggested next actions, and any practical constraints like server connectivity.

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 input schema already describes the single parameter as 'Server UUID, name, or IP' with 100% coverage. The description only restates this format without adding additional detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('diagnose') and resource ('server'), and clearly enumerates what it returns: running resources with status breakdown, configured domains, and suggested next actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getServer, getServerResources, and getServerDomains.

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?

Usage context is implied through the diagnostic purpose and sibling tool names, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getServer or getServerResources. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are given.

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