ue5_run_diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool 'runs' diagnostics and outputs a matrix, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or is safe to invoke at any time. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes something.

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 a single concise sentence (with a bilingual repetition) that front-loads the core purpose and then gives usage conditions. Every word contributes value, and there is no superfluous information.

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 and no output schema, the description must at least explain the return content. It mentions 'complete C++ API method matrix and any missing critical APIs,' giving an idea of the output, but it does not specify the format, size, or how to interpret the results. It also omits any warnings or prerequisites, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for a diagnostic tool that could produce a substantial report.

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 applies because the schema is fully covered (100% coverage with no params).

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 clearly states the tool's function: running full bridge diagnostics that produce a complete C++ API method matrix and identify missing critical APIs. This specific verb+resource differentiates it from sibling tools that perform concrete operations like checking health or reading assets.

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 explicitly provides triggers: use when a tool fails with an API-missing error, or after upgrading/replacing the bridge DLL. This gives the agent precise conditions for invocation, leaving no ambiguity about when this diagnostic tool is appropriate.

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