diagnoseClient

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: this is a single-call aggregation of three data sources and history is capped at the last 10 sessions, which tells the agent about scope and truncation. It omits any note on lookup failure behavior or output shape, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, when to reach for it, what input it takes. The composite scope is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by listing the three data components and the 10-session history window. It stops short of describing how those components are structured or what happens when the identifier matches nothing, which is a minor gap for a read-only diagnostic.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in structured form, making the baseline 3. The description restates that MAC, IP, or hostname are accepted but adds no new syntax or constraint detail, and it never mentions the optional siteId 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 names a specific composite resource and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: current connection status, detailed info (VLAN, signal, rate limit, group policy), and the last 10 sessions. This clearly separates it from siblings like getClientDetail or getGridClientHistory, which return only one slice.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use triggers — cannot connect, poor performance, repeated disconnects — which is exactly the troubleshooting context for a composite tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to prefer the narrower sibling calls instead, which keeps it below a 5.

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