diagnose_environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses default behavior (summary without large arrays), pagination details, drill-down capabilities, and auto-resolution of customerId. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but the health check context implies it. Overall, transparent and sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured. Three short paragraphs front-load the purpose, then detail the default behavior, drill-down options, and pagination. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (duel mode, pagination, auto-resolve), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary information. It covers usage, parameters, and output expectations without significant gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema: for 'section', it explains what each value returns (e.g., DLP rules with action types, browser version counts); for 'limit' and 'offset', it clarifies pagination usage; for 'customerId', it confirms auto-resolution. This adds value.

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 states the tool runs a health check of the Chrome Enterprise Premium environment, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific sub-resources (e.g., list_dlp_rules, list_org_units). It explains the dual behavior (summary vs. detail) and explicitly lists drill-down sections.

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 advises using the tool for a high-level summary by default, and to drill into specific sections via the 'section' parameter. It implies alternatives exist (the dedicated list tools) but does not explicitly say when not to use this tool. The agent guidance to present findings to the user is helpful.

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