lab_diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope about which configuration areas are inspected, but it does not disclose anything further about return format, required guest state, or availability constraints; with annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tightly written sentence with zero filler. The resource scope is front-loaded and every listed domain earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations fully cover the safety profile. The one-parameter schema is trivial. The remaining gap is the absence of selection guidance against sibling diagnostic tools, which is minor for such a straightforward read-only tool.

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?

There is only one parameter, vm_name, and schema description coverage is 0%. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not mention it or clarify whether it refers to a running VM, a guest identifier, or a host-side object. Baseline 3 for a single obvious parameter.

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 read verb and enumerates the exact configuration domains covered: boot, Secure Boot, VBS/HVCI, test-signing, debugger, disk, and crash-dump. This makes the purpose distinct from general runtime-status siblings like guest_status, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lab_verify, guest_status, or debug_guest_prepare. The scope implies diagnostic inspection, but the agent must infer selection conditions from the field list alone.

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