tnd_get_diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by bounding the data exposure ('不返回密码或Token') and confirming it will not alter configuration, which tells the agent it is safe to call purely for inspection.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and followed by a semicolon-delimited list of checks, then the negative constraints. Nothing is redundant, though the run-on list format makes it slightly harder to scan than a short structured breakdown would be.

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 parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition covers the checks performed and the safety boundaries. The only gap is that it does not hint at the shape of the returned diagnostic results, which matters somewhat since no output schema exists to describe them.

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, so per the baseline this scores 4; the description correctly describes a no-argument aggregate diagnostic rather than implying any inputs.

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 names a specific verb (诊断/diagnose) and enumerates the concrete resources checked: connectivity and version, shared-directory read/write permissions, download-path consistency, worker heartbeat and batch status. That is far more specific than a sibling like tnd_get_status or tnd_get_batch_status, though it never explicitly says how it differs from those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumeration of checks signals a troubleshooting/sanity-check tool to run when downloads misbehave. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over tnd_get_status or tnd_get_batch_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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