get_mcp_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful safety context by explicitly stating 'Does not expose secrets' and listing that the operation is a read-only return of diagnostics. It could go further by explicitly stating no side effects, but the wording strongly implies a non-mutating diagnostic call.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the tool's purpose and its full output contents, and the second adds a worthwhile security-relevant caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool is for, exactly what information it returns, and that it does not leak secrets. There are no hidden parameters or complex output structures that would require additional explanation.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description compensates by listing what the output will include, which is the relevant semantic information for a no-input diagnostic tool. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and nothing is lost by the schema being empty.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Return MCP package/runtime diagnostics') and enumerates the exact diagnostic fields, so an agent understands both the action and the subject matter. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling diagnostic-oriented tools such as get_server_info or check_connection, so it misses the top score.

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 states what the tool returns but does not say when to use it, when not to use it, or which sibling tools might be more appropriate for related needs. There is no explicit or implicit guidance for choosing between this and other diagnostic/inspection tools like get_server_info, get_active_profile, or check_connection.

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