run_live_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only repeats the tool's name. There is no information about side effects, runtime implications, required inputs, output format, or safety profile, making the tool's behavior completely opaque.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It contains no structural elements like usage scenarios or parameter context, and it fails to earn its place by providing any useful information.

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?

Given the tool's ambiguous name, absence of annotations, lack of output schema, and two unexplained parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not cover basic aspects of what the tool does, when to use it, or what the parameters mean, making it almost useless for an AI agent.

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 input schema has two parameters (taskId, pathname) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. The agent is left guessing what 'taskId' and 'pathname' refer to and how they affect the diagnostics.

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 'Run live diagnostics.' essentially restates the tool name, providing no specific verb or resource beyond the name itself. It fails to clarify what 'live diagnostics' encompasses or how it differs from related sibling tools like run_lint or get_console_errors.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision support among the many similar diagnostic tools.

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