create_diagnostic_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: output is sanitized/redacted and the write is confined to an 'approved' directory. It omits whether existing bundles are overwritten, how the directory is resolved, approximate size or cost, and whether the operation is safe to repeat.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key constraint (sanitized, approved directory) comes early. It is arguably under-sized rather than padded, leaving behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needs no explanation. Still, as an unannotated write tool it should say what the bundle contains, whether files are overwritten, and roughly how large or slow it is; those gaps leave the agent guessing about side effects.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Coverage is also listed at 100%, so no gap remains.

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?

Specific verb (write) plus specific resource (a sanitized local diagnostic summary) and a stated destination (the approved diagnostics directory). It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as server_health, system_info, or get_capability_help, which also produce system diagnostics.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this instead of server_health, system_info, or read_event_logs, and no preconditions such as needing prior failure signals. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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