fgis_diagnose

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool uses a configured route and focuses on proxy vs full-tunnel VPN limitations, which is consistent with the annotations but does not go deeper into result format, external requests, or potential variability.

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, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Check FGIS API JSON') and then concisely states the secondary explanatory purpose, so every clause 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and context. However, it does not describe the expected output format, when exactly to run the diagnostic, or what the limitations of the diagnostic itself are. The low complexity keeps it adequate, but there are clear informational gaps.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds value by indicating the tool relies on a configured route rather than user-supplied parameters, which clarifies why no inputs are needed.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('FGIS API JSON via configured route'), and adds that it explains proxy vs full-tunnel VPN limitationstas. This makes it clearly a diagnostic tool rather than a data-access tool, though 'check' could be more explicit about what check entails, preventing a 5.

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 tool is for diagnosing API connectivity/route issues and VPN configuration limitations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The sibling names suggest it is unique, but the usage guidance is only implicit.

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