diagnose_connectivity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying the exact checks performed (ping, ARP lookup, gateway status) and that it produces a combined diagnosis. This goes beyond simple read-only declaration and helps the agent predict what happens.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place by describing scope and method without verbose detail.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. Annotations cover safety, and the description explains inputs and behavior sufficiently. A small deduction for not providing any direct comparison to similar diagnostic sibling tools, but the description is otherwise complete for a simple diagnostic operation.

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 100%, and the schema already clearly explains 'host' and 'count' including defaults and max. The description adds little beyond the schema except that ping is involved, which is already implied by the count parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 ('Test connectivity') and clearly identifies the resource and scope: a host from the pfSense appliance. It differentiates itself by listing the combined checks (ping, ARP, gateway) that produce a diagnosis, distinguishing it from simpler sibling tools like run_ping_diagnostic.

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?

The description implies usage context through 'combined connectivity diagnosis' and lists the components, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over run_ping_diagnostic, get_arp_table, or get_gateway_status. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is included.

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