diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: it runs in a disposable copy and returns evidence only, never executing arbitrary commands. This addresses safety and scope beyond 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and constraints. Every phrase ('disposable copy', 'evidence only', 'never accepts arbitrary commands') earns its place without redundancy.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions. The description omits any parameter information and does not explain return values (though an output schema is absent). While it covers key behavioral aspects, it is incomplete for callers needing to know required inputs and expected results.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully explain parameters. It does not mention 'repo_path' or 'timeout' at all. The description only implies the tool operates on a project, but no parameter details, defaults, or usage are provided.

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 ('Run') and a precise resource ('detected project-native diagnostics'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like run_tests and security_scan by specifying 'disposable copy' and 'detected project-native'.

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?

It implicitly states when to use it: to obtain diagnostic evidence from project-native tools. But it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when to use run_tests or security_scan instead). The context of a disposable copy suggests a safe, exploratory use case.

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