Diagnose target

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds specific behavioral detail: the order/tayers of checks (DNS, TCP, owner, HTTP, resources) and accepted target forms. It does not contradict the annotations and gives an agent a clear picture of what will happen when invoked.

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 one terse line with no filler. It front-loads the core concept ('layered diagnosis') and packs the accepted formats and diagnostic layers without waste. Every token contributes to the tool's behavior.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the input format and the diagnostic layers sufficiently. However, terms like 'owner' and 'resources' are left undefined, and there is no example or note on what a typical invocation looks like. It is adequate but leaves room for misinterpretation.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It explains that the single 'target' parameter can be host:port, http(s)://, or service:NAME, which directly informs how to fill the argument. Some sub-terms like 'owner' and 'resources' are not expanded, but the core syntax is useful.

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 states a clear action ('layered diagnosis') and defines the target formats (host:port, http(s)://, service:NAME). It also lists the diagnostic layers (DNS/TCP/owner/HTTP/resources), which distinguishes it from simpler single-purpose siblings like dns_lookup or port_check. However, it does not explicitly name any alternative tool, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 gives input syntax but no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as port_check, dns_lookup, network_check, or service_status. It implies a use case for layered diagnosis but does not state exclusions or provide decision criteria. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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