build_desktop_diagnostics

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

Description labels the tool as 'read-only', which is helpful, but fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects, or how parameters affect output. With no annotations, the burden on description is high and unmet.

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?

Description is a single sentence, achieving conciseness but lacking structure or additional details. It is minimally viable but not optimally efficient given the complexity.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter combinations, return content, or preconditions, leaving the agent inadequately informed.

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% and description adds no explanation for any of the 10 parameters. Only 'optional pack health' is alluded to but not mapped to a specific parameter. Agent receives no semantic guidance beyond the schema's names and types.

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?

Description explicitly states verb 'Build', resource 'desktop-agent diagnostics report', and sources from project state, MCP config, desktop evidence, and optional pack health. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on chapters, proposals, or other specific areas.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a diagnostics use case but does not specify conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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