Diagnose Money Lover write context

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

The description states 'Read-only,' which is a clear behavioral disclosure that the tool has no side effects. This is valuable given the absence of annotations. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or what the diagnostic output contains. It provides only a minimal behavioral trait and some scope, but the burden is higher without annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with 'Read-only' and states the three diagnostic domains compactly. While it could be more informative, the structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

This tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the purpose of each parameter, what the diagnostic output looks like, or any prerequisites. It is far too sparse to allow an agent to correctly invoke the tool. A comprehensive description would need to cover parameter roles, expected response, and usage context, all of which are missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description bears the full responsibility for explaining parameters. It mentions 'wallet ownership,' 'browser write config,' and 'category-v2 runtime mapping,' which could loosely relate to walletId, token, and category fields, but it does not explicitly define any parameter. The token parameter is entirely unaddressed. The description provides no meaningful semantics for the five parameters, so the agent cannot determine what values to supply.

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's purpose: 'Read-only diagnostics for wallet ownership, browser write config, and category-v2 runtime mapping.' It names specific resources and the diagnostic nature, which distinguishes it from simple getters like get_wallets or get_categories. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state conditions under which diagnostics are needed, nor does it mention when to avoid using it. While 'diagnostics' implies a troubleshooting use-case, there is no explicit context or exclusion, leaving the agent to guess.

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