Diagnose Agent Backend

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

Annotations state destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, indicating a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the word 'Queue', implying the diagnostic is submitted asynchronously, but it does not disclose what side effects the diagnostics have (e.g., does it modify backend state, send telemetry, or run commands?). It also does not clarify the meaning of 'without conditionally hiding the tool' in behavioral terms. No contradiction with annotations, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover.

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 short sentence with no filler, so it is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. The phrase 'without conditionally hiding the tool' appears to be an instruction about tool visibility rather than functionality, wasting space. A useful description would need more detail to meet the minimum viable standard.

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?

Given the tool's complex schema (nested config with 7 subfields, workspace object, idempotency_key) and its destructive, asynchronous nature, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what 'backend diagnostics' are, what the tool returns (output schema exists but is not referenced), or any required setup. Sibling tools like agent_status and agent_backends likely have overlapping functions, and without context the agent cannot reliably choose this tool. The description leaves too many unknowns.

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 description provides zero information about the parameters (backend, workspace, config, idempotency_key). While the schema includes descriptions for some fields (config and workspace), schema description coverage is only 25%, meaning most parameters lack explanation. The description does not compensate for this gap, leaving agents to guess the purpose and format of the config object and idempotency key.

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 mentions 'Queue backend diagnostics', which gives a verb and a resource, indicating the tool queues diagnostics for the backend. However, it does not elaborate on what 'diagnostics' entails, whether it runs tests, collects logs, or checks health. It also does not distinguish it from sibling tools like agent_status or agent_review, which might also involve diagnostic checks. The phrase 'without conditionally hiding the tool' is confusing and does not clarify the tool's purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios that call for diagnosing a backend. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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