get_diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies the returned diagnostics (session counts, event totals, DB path), which is useful transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention permission requirements or potential side effects, though 'get' implies a safe query.

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, front-loaded sentence: it starts with the action and resource, then lists specific content. No filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no-parameter diagnostics tool, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what data it returns. It lacks an explicit return format or operational context, but given the simplicity and absence of an output schema, it is mostly complete. A minor gap is not mentioning any broader usage context, but this is not critical.

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, so the empty input schema fully covers parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, even though the description adds no parameter details.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('LoopLens server diagnostics'), and enumerates specific data elements (session counts, event totals, DB path). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on individual sessions, events, and loop analysis.

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 this is for retrieving overall server health and statistics, which is self-evident from the word 'diagnostics'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions, but the diagnostic role is clear enough.

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