list_diagnostics

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so there is no contradiction. Beyond adding the HTTP endpoint, the description discloses no behavioral context such as what diagnostics contain, scope limits, or response behavior. It adds little beyond the annotations.

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 very short and wastes no words: a one-line summary plus the endpoint. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though 'Get Diagnostics' is more terse than idealized.

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 read-only endpoint with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient for invocation. The main missing piece is differentiation from sibling diagnostics endpoints, but that gap is more about usage guidance than basic completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline 4 applies. No parameter documentation is 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get Diagnostics', backed by the explicit endpoint GET /diagnostics. It is somewhat generic compared with more specific siblings like list_diagnostics_databases and list_diagnostics_logs, but an agent can still infer this is the top-level diagnostics endpoint.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts. The sibling list includes more specific diagnostics endpoints, but the description does nothing to help an agent choose among them.

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