diagnostic_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly states the tool is 'read-only' and runs 'diagnostic commands', implying safe, non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., resource usage, error handling, return format), leaving gaps in behavioral expectations.

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 that front-loades the key purpose: 'run one of a small predefined set of read-only diagnostic commands'. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 only 1 parameter (undocumented), an output schema present but unspecified, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains, what commands are valid, or how this differs from `diagnose_vps` and other diagnostic tools. A richer description is needed given the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0% (no description in schema), so the description must compensate. It mentions the tool runs a 'small predefined set of diagnostic commands', which implies the single `command` parameter selects from that set. But it doesn't list or hint at valid command values, leaving the agent to guess. Baseline 3 given the minimal information.

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 runs 'read-only diagnostic commands' from a 'small predefined set'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `diagnose_vps` and other docker/system tools by emphasizing read-only diagnostics. However, it doesn't specify what commands are available or mention the single parameter, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 like `diagnose_vps`, `system_info`, or `docker_health`. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, which is inadequate given the many sibling tools with overlapping diagnostic purposes.

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