deploy_diagnose_url

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is read-only, does not mutate state, does not fetch bytes, purge cache, or expose internal URLs. It also mentions structured warnings for ignored query/fragment. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and input forms; the second details what the diagnostic covers and what it excludes. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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, the description fully explains what the diagnostic returns: match status, body status, static metadata, warnings, next steps. It also covers authentication and input constraints. All 5 parameters are documented, and the tool's behavior is comprehensively described.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides detailed parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema offers, but it does summarize the overall diagnostic behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Read-only authenticated diagnostics for a Run402 public URL or host/path pair.' It specifies the input forms (URL or host/path), outlines what it explains (match, body status, metadata, warnings, next steps), and distinguishes from other tools by emphasizing it is read-only and diagnostic.

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 lists what the tool does not do: 'This does not fetch bytes, purge cache, mutate deploy state, or expose internal CAS URLs.' This helps the agent avoid misuse. It implies authentication is needed but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. However, the comprehensive list of behaviors provides clear guidance.

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