execute_diagnostic

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

Annotations already mark this as non-readOnly and non-idempotent, and the description adds valuable context: pre-execution checks, manual execution semantics, write permission requirement, and a polling handoff. It doesn't detail what the script may modify, but the annotations plus description give a solid behavioral picture.

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 three tight sentences with no filler: action, pre-flight behavior, and follow-up polling. Each sentence earns its place and the most important information 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?

There is no output schema, but the description mitigates this by explicitly pointing to get_diagnostic_remediation_results for status and output, and by noting pre-checks and permission requirements. It doesn't describe failure modes or what happens if pre-checks fail, but the information is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the property descriptions already state; 'target device' and 'DiagnosticSource script' essentially mirror the schema's host_id and diagnostic_source_id descriptions.

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 specific verb ('Execute'), resource ('DiagnosticSource script'), and target ('device'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes this from the sibling execute_remediation by explicitly naming DiagnosticSource rather than remediation.

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 clear procedural context: pre-execution checks, manual execution trigger, and polling get_diagnostic_remediation_results for status and output. It does not explicitly name when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives, but the workflow guidance implies a clear usage path.

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