run_diagnostics

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

The description adds behavioral context by noting the check is 'fast' and covers 'all LMCP integrations' including 'AI apps connected to LMCP'. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose what results look like, whether anything is modified, or what success/failure means.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by naming the scope and speed of the diagnostic. The trailing ellipsis suggests the text may be truncated, which slightly detracts from completeness.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description gives the general purpose but omits return-value details, expected output, and any guidance distinguishing it from closely related diagnostic siblings. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description carries more responsibility and falls short.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is already fully covered by that fact. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed because there are no parameters to document.

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 a specific action ('Runs a fast health check') and a specific resource ('all LMCP integrations on this machine, including the AI apps connected to LMCP'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like lmcp_doctor or lmcp_upgrade_diagnostics.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus lmcp_doctor, lmcp_state, lmcp_upgrade_diagnostics, or other diagnostic tools. The word 'fast' implies a quick check, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are named.

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