diagnose_service_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: it enumerates all services, identifies stopped services, and checks CPU/memory/disk utilization. This is meaningful context without contradicting the safe-read annotation.

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 compact and well-structured: a lead sentence establishing the tool's purpose, followed by a concise breakdown of the checks performed. Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 diagnostic with an output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior and scope. It could be slightly more complete by addressing its relationship to similar tools like get_system_health_report, but it is functionally sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema confirms no required inputs, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a service health diagnostic, with a specific verb ('diagnoses'/'gets') and a concrete resource scope: all services, stopped services, and system resource utilization. It is distinct from narrow sibling diagnostics, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related tools like get_system_health_report.

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 phrase 'Comprehensive service health check' implies a broad health-assessment use case, and the list of checks provides context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, which is notable given the many sibling diagnostic tools.

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