Server diagnostics

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

The description states that the tool reads build, executable, version, and connectivity information, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=true. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation by naming what is inspected, without promising any write or side-effecting behavior.

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 well-structured sentence front-loads the verb and lists all reported categories with no filler, redundancy, or repetition of information already present in the annotations or schema.

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?

Annotations cover safety and scope, the schema fully documents the only parameter, and an output schema is present so return-value structure does not need to be restated. The definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only parameter, probe, is fully described in the schema with its default value and behavioral distinction between checking connectivity and reading only local build info. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the verb 'Report' and enumerates the exact resource contents: server build, executable, OmniFocus version/capabilities, and automation connectivity. This clearly distinguishes it from task-manipulation siblings and makes the tool's scope immediately identifiable.

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 intended use is only implied by the diagnostic focus and title; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as search_automation_api or dump_database. An agent can infer when it is relevant, but the description does not state it.

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