deploy_diagnose_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, does not fetch bytes, purge cache, mutate deploy state, or expose internal CAS URLs. It also lists what the diagnostic includes (match, body status, manifest metadata, structured warnings), providing comprehensive transparency.

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, well-structured paragraph of three sentences. It is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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?

Despite no output schema and multiple parameters, the description thoroughly explains the tool's behavior, expected diagnostic output (match, status, metadata, warnings), and what it does not do. It covers all necessary context for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds context that the tool works for URL or host/path pairs and mentions the method, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states 'Read-only authenticated diagnostics for a Run402 public URL or host/path pair' and enumerates specific diagnostic outputs (match, body status, manifest metadata, warnings). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly listing what it does not do, differentiating it from siblings like 'deploy' or 'diagnose_public_url'.

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 explains the tool's purpose and mentions it provides diagnostics for public URLs or host/path pairs, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives (e.g., 'diagnose_public_url'). The read-only nature and non-mutating behavior are clear, but exclusion criteria are lacking.

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