diagnostics

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

The description discloses read-only nature and explicitly states what data is not returned (PTY content, credentials, paths, environment values). Given no annotations, this provides sufficient behavioral transparency for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The key point ('read-only diagnostics returning safe vocabulary') is front-loaded.

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, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is complete. It clearly defines scope, safety guarantees, and exclusions.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies as it adds no confusion.

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 clearly states 'Factory 向け read-only 診断' (Factory-oriented read-only diagnostics) and specifies that it returns only safe vocabulary in machine-readable JSON, explicitly listing excluded data types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pty_open or pty_list.

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 usage for Factory contexts via '向け' but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternative tools. Usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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