get_api_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns diagnostic info and includes a live health check, implying network activity arenas but does not mention potential side effects, failure modes, or permission requirements. Adds reasonable context but not exhaustive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Return MCP and findtime Time API diagnostics') and efficiently lists the returned components. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema), and the description covers the main functionality. It could mention that the health check may incur network latency or that the auth configuration might be sensitive, but it's adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the schema fully explains the single optional parameter. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but the baseline of 3 applies since schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 returns diagnostics for the MCP and findtime API, listing specific items like version, URL, auth config, and health check. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools, which all focus on time-related operations.

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 tool's purpose is unique among siblings, so usage context is clear from the description (diagnostics). However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions, though none seem necessary.

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