agent_diagnostics

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish the safe read-only nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying that no VM lease is acquired, which is a non-obvious operational detail beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and object, then adds a key differentiating detail. No wasted words—every element 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with strong annotations, the description is fully adequate. It communicates the core purpose and the lease-free behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies, and the empty schema aligns with the tool's simple read-only nature.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and names the exact resources ('guest crash context and supervisor recovery status'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vm_status by noting 'without acquiring the VM lease', making the tool's scope clear.

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 'without acquiring the VM lease' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a lightweight diagnostic read is needed without locking the VM. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context implies this is the go-to for non-invasive crash/recovery checks.

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