diagnose_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the owner/admin authorization requirement, that the daemon resolves membership, that output reuses diagnose_service's failure bundle, and that it 'grants no additional authority' (a useful privilege-escalation clarification). It omits return shape and read-only nature, but the key behavioral facts are present.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the ID preference, then behavior. The 'under the existing owner/admin policy' clause is slightly awkwardly placed but no sentence is wasted.

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 3-parameter, fully-schema-documented tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers authorization, escalation posture, and result provenance. What is missing — contents of the failure bundle — is minor given the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the immutability/retired-ID rationale and the log_tail clamp. The description only echoes the 'prefer the ID' guidance, adding negligible meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource with scope: 'Diagnose one service of an explicit project.' Naming diagnose_service as the bundle source implies the relationship to the sibling, though it never explicitly contrasts when to pick this over diagnose_service.

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 only usage steering is 'Prefer an immutable project ID,' plus the mention that it reuses diagnose_service's bundle. There is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of diagnose_service, or of any preconditions beyond the owner/admin policy note.

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