Run Diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output format (plain text with [OK]/[FAIL]/[WARN] prefixes), renderer safety, and lack of CLI execution. It misses explicitly stating read-only nature, but infers safety from context.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Key points are front-loaded: diagnosis, server-side, output format, renderer safety.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output style, and cross-client compatibility. It could mention what kind of checks are run, but completeness is sufficient given simplicity.

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 no parameters, and input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add param info and correctly omits any.

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 purpose: diagnosing context-mode installation. It specifies it runs server-side checks and returns a formatted status report. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are focused on execution, search, or indexing.

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 implies usage for diagnosing installation issues but does not explicitly state when to use it or provide alternatives. No clear when-not-to-use guidance is given, though the context suggests it is the primary diagnostic tool.

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