generate_diagnostic_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only gives a generic action. It does not mention side effects, read-only nature, authentication needs, output format, or any constraints. This is effectively no transparency for an agent attempting to understand the tool's 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?

The description is incredibly brief (one short sentence), but it lacks necessary detail. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness; the single sentence does not add enough value to be considered well-structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a description that only states a vague action. For a tool that presumably generates a diagnostic plan, the description fails to cover the purpose, parameters, expected output, or usage conditions, making it completely inadequate.

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 schema has two parameters (taskId and pathname) with no descriptions and 0% coverage. The description fails to explain what these parameters mean or how they influence the recommendation generation, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance.

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 verb and resource ('generate diagnostic recommendations') but is vague about what diagnostics or what recommendations. It does not provide scope or differentiate from sibling plan-generation tools like generate_performance_fix_plan or generate_website_improvement_plan, which are similarly named but more specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it compares to alternatives. Given the large list of sibling tools for diagnostics, audits, and planning, the absence of context makes it impossible to determine the appropriate use case.

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