mcp_doctor_diagnose_server

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, permissions, and output, but it does not. 'Diagnosis' implies a read-only operation, but that is not confirmed; it also gives no indication of what the tool returns (report, status, data). The description adds little beyond the basic action.

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 one sentence, front-loads the verb, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, even though it omits optional details.

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 tool performing deep diagnosis with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what a successful diagnosis looks like, how results are represented, or how it relates to the other two sibling tools. Agents cannot reasonably predict call outcomes or next steps from this description.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already described with reasonable detail. The description's reference to 'command, arguments, environment' aligns with those parameters but adds little beyond reinforcing that they form a 'server definition.' This matches the baseline for a fully-described schema.

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 the primary action ('diagnosis') and the target resource ('specific MCP server definition'), naming the relevant aspects (command, arguments, environment). The phrase 'in-depth' helps differentiate from a generic scan, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with mcp_doctor_scan or mcp_doctor_repair_json.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus the siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternative conditions, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer that single-server diagnosis is intended, but the description does not state it outright.

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