lmcp_upgrade_diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds a safety clarification ('not editing your data') but does not disclose whether the tool performs network calls, reads local state, or has side effects. The mention of 'current version' hints at output but lacks depth.

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 sentence and front-loads the key verb and resource. However, the trailing '...' suggests it may be truncated or incomplete, which slightly detracts from structure.

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?

For a no-param, no-output-schema tool, the description should fully explain what health information is returned. It mentions 'current version' but leaves the rest ambiguous with '...', which is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds useful context about what the tool reports, even if it doesn't elaborate on parameters (which don't exist).

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 LMCP's self-upgrade health, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource. It also distinguishes this from editing data, which differentiates it from sibling tools like lmcp_install_upgrade and lmcp_state.

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 provides context that this tool is about the app upgrading itself, not user data, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., lmcp_install_upgrade for performing upgrades) or exclusions.

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