diagnose_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a non-mutating preflight check but never states that it is read-only, side-effect free, or what it returns (no output schema exists). For a zero-parameter preflight call this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response shape.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the purpose first and the actionable trigger second. 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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say roughly what a successful or failed diagnosis yields (a status report? an error?). As written the agent knows when to call it but not what to expect back.

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 takes no parameters and the description introduces none, so there is nothing to mis-specify. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and a concrete scope: OmniFocus connectivity, permissions, and server status. An agent can distinguish it from data-retrieval siblings like list_projects, though the description never contrasts it with the adjacent get_system_health or get_server_version, leaving some overlap ambiguous.

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?

'Run this first if experiencing issues' gives an explicit triggering condition, which is exactly what a diagnostic tool needs. It stops short of naming alternatives (get_server_version, get_system_health) or saying when not to bother running it.

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