diagnose_public_url

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: the probe is from a single region, the probe may warm the cache (probeMayHaveWarmedCache), and errors for unauthorized or invalid URLs. This provides strong transparency about side effects and limitations.

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 that front-loads the core function, then adds usage, output details, and caveats. Every sentence contributes value 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 description covers input parameters, output fields (even without output schema), error cases, and behavioral notes. It is comprehensive for a diagnostic tool, though it does not compare with sibling tools like 'deploy_diagnose_url'.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (project_id, url). The description adds context about the probe location and output fields, but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 the tool returns live CDN state for a public blob URL, specifies it's from a single region (gateway-us-east-1), and contrasts with a global view. It also mentions specific output fields, making the purpose very distinct.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (wrong version, suspected cache staleness) and provides error conditions (403 for unauthorized projects, 400 for invalid domains). It does not explicitly reference sibling tools, but the guidance is specific and actionable.

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