p6_diagnose

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it operates without a database connection and enumerates the specific diagnostic fields it inspects, which tells the agent what evidence the call produces.

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, front-loaded with the trigger condition before the enumeration of returned fields. The parenthetical list is dense but every item is informative rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the contents of the diagnostic report, and annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call this and interpret the result is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. No parameter-level confusion is possible for this 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?

Specific verb+resource (diagnose the P6 server configuration) with an explicit enumeration of what it reports: server settings in force, P6 schema/version, running state, backup and edit-log folders. This is clearly distinct from the data-retrieval siblings (p6_list_projects, p6_query_activities, etc.), so an agent can separate it without opening a schema.

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?

"Start here when a tool reports a configuration problem" gives a concrete triggering condition, and "Works without a database" adds a precondition-free usage context. It does not, however, address the nearest sibling p6_health_check, so the boundary between diagnostics and health checking is left to inference.

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