cyd_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the fingerprint parameter's effect: '1 starts summing the CRC-32 of everything sent to the LCD... 0 stops it'. This is a meaningful side effect beyond a simple read. It also adds the property about firmware builds producing the same change, which is useful diagnostic context. The 'Observation' label suggests a read-only nature, though the fingerprint action modifies state, so it is not purely read-only. This is a solid disclosure of the tool's behavior.

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 compact—two sentences that pack a lot of information without waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter explanation follows logically. No redundant phrases or filler. Every sentence 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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter well. However, it does not describe the return format or how the diagnostics data is presented, which could be ambiguous for an agent. It also doesn't clarify what 'desktop transport and health diagnostics' concretely includes. Given the lack of an output schema, the description should ideally hint at the response structure or provide usage examples. These gaps make it only partially complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by explaining exactly what fingerprint=1 and fingerprint=0 do, including the CRC-32 summing behavior and the property of identical painting behavior. This goes far beyond the raw schema (integer min 0 max 1) and gives the agent everything needed to use the parameter correctly. The optionality is implied but not explicitly stated; still, the semantics are fully clarified.

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 opens with 'Read desktop transport and health diagnostics', giving a clear verb and resource. The tool is distinct from its siblings, which deal with home, apps, input, etc. The phrase 'Observation, L2' hints at a read-only monitoring role, though 'desktop transport' is jargon that could be clearer. Overall, the purpose is discernible and differentiated enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where another tool would be preferable. The only contextual hint is 'Machine-specific (cyd)', which suggests it applies only to that machine, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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