get_diagnostics

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context. It does add useful behavior: the process scan is skipped by default, costs about 2.7 seconds when enabled, and an 'unavailable' result means dependent tools will fail for environmental reasons rather than being buggy. It does not describe what the diagnostics output actually contains, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and default, then rationale, then the parameter. Mostly tight, though the 'default does not scan local processes' point is stated twice (in the opening and again in the Args block), which is mild redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what the diagnostics return. It enumerates the checked areas (Python, Frida, engine parsers) but not the shape of the result or how unavailability is signaled, leaving a small inference gap for a tool whose whole output is the answer.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single `scan_processes` parameter. It explains the default (False), the concrete cost of enabling it (~2.7s), and why it is redundant with `find_game_processes` — everything an agent needs to decide whether to set it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: checking whether the runtime environment (Python, Frida, engine parsers) is usable. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `scan_processes`/`find_game_processes`, so an agent can tell which tool answers which question.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance ('call once before starting work') and explicit routing: for listing running games, call `find_game_processes` instead, because this tool defaults to not scanning and duplicates that responsibility. Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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