power_run_diagnostic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a multi-phase process and that retries happen conditionally ('safely retry when permitted'), which is useful sequencing context, but it says nothing about whether the diagnostic is disruptive, what permissions are required, or what changes are made to the device.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated content. The phrase 'safely retry when permitted' is vague and slightly hollow, but overall the sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a no-annotation tool with a required, completely undocumented parameter and no statement of side effects or permission requirements, the description leaves meaningful gaps an agent would need filled before invoking it.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'device' parameter, and the description adds no format or naming guidance (device ID, name, or type). The description does nothing to compensate for the completely undocumented input.

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 names a recognizable operation (run a diagnostic on a device) and enumerates the sequence of verify → diagnose → retry → re-verify. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like power_turn_on_and_verify, which also verifies a device, so an agent must guess at the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the seven siblings (power_control_device, power_turn_on_and_verify, etc.), nor any prerequisites or triggers. 'When permitted' is asserted but never defined, so the agent has no way to know what conditions gate the retry path.

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