diagnoseClient

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the composite nature and accepted identifier formats (MAC, IP, hostname) but does not describe authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or return behavior beyond implied aggregation.

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?

Two sentences: first defines composite nature, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words. Front-loaded with key benefit and components.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, description covers purpose, usage, and identifier format. Missing details on default site behavior, error handling, or return structure. Adequate but incomplete for a composite diagnostic tool.

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 covers identifier and siteId with descriptions. Description adds valuable detail on identifier formats (MAC with colon/hyphen, IP, hostname) and states siteId is optional. Does not mention customHeaders, leaving some gap.

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 explicitly states it is a 'composite client diagnostic' that combines connection status, detailed info (VLAN, signal, rate limit, group policy), and recent connection history (last 10 sessions). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by being a single call aggregating multiple data points.

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?

Provides specific use cases: 'troubleshooting why a device can't connect, has poor performance, or keeps disconnecting.' Implicitly suggests when not to use (if only one piece of data needed, use getClient or getClientDetail), but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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