get_diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the result is 'stable' and 'content-free,' which hints that the call is predictable and returns no actual diagnostic data. However, it does not describe side effects, error behavior for invalid bundles, authentication needs, or what the envelope contains beyond what an output schema might show.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler or repetition. The key characteristics ('stable', 'content-free') are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 is simple and has an output schema, so return-value details are not strictly necessary. However, the description leaves the meaning of 'diagnostics envelope' unexplained and gives no usage context relative to siblings. With no annotations, the overall package is incomplete for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 input schema has one parameter ('bundle') with no description and zero schema coverage. The description only says 'for a local bundle,' which hints that the parameter identifies a bundle, but it does not explain accepted format, how null behaves, or what 'local' means in this context.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and points to a specific resource ('a stable, content-free diagnostics envelope for a local bundle'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling diagnostic/readiness tools like get_readiness or okf_doctor_tool, though the 'content-free' modifier adds some distinctiveness.

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 guidance about when to use this tool rather than the many sibling tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The phrase 'for a local bundle' implies a use case, but no alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria are stated.

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