list_checks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the modest context that the checks form an 'extensible catalogue' (i.e., the list is a registry that can grow), which is genuine but thin; no cost, rate, or ordering behavior is disclosed.

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 padding. Every word earns its place and the core action leads the sentence.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the definition is close to sufficient — return values are documented elsewhere and behavior is covered by hints. It stops short of 5 because nothing tells the agent where this catalogue sits relative to the diagnostic siblings.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the schema description coverage is 100%.

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 and resource ('List the registered diagnostic checks') and adds a scope hint ('the extensible catalogue'). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never differentiates itself from similarly named siblings such as list_events or get_params, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the resource noun alone.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The agent gets no signal on whether this should be called before analyze_log, incident_timeline, or the other siblings, or what a prerequisite would be.

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