Diagnose

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

With readOnlyHint annotation already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds value by listing exactly what diagnostics are reported (version, providers, clients, status). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation alone.

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: the first states the purpose concisely, the second lists the diagnostic outputs. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given no parameters, presence of an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers what the tool does and what it reports without needing further details.

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 100% schema description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description is irrelevant to parameters but does not miss any requirement.

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 ('Run diagnostic checks') and resource ('QGIS MCP stack'), and lists concrete items reported (QGIS version, plugin/server version match, etc.). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like get_qgis_info or get_plugin_info which provide individual pieces of information.

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 implies this tool is for general health checks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative diagnostic tools (e.g., get_project_info, get_processing_providers). No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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