Server status

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

It explicitly discloses a key behavior beyond the readOnlyHint: 'No network requests'. It also clarifies that it inspects browser state, cache, disk-cache freshness, and politeness settings, so the agent knows what kind of internal state is read. The description is consistent with annotations, not contradictive.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose ('Diagnostics'), lists the specific areas covered, then adds a critical behavioral note and a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or irrelevant detail.

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 has no parameters and has an output schema, the description provides enough context for correct selection and invocation. It explains what state is examined, that no network request occurs, and when to use it. Nothing important is missing for an agent to call this tool appropriately.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify. Baseline for zero params is 4, and no additional param 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 clearly identifies the tool as a diagnostics tool covering specific areas: browser state, cache and disk-cache freshness, and politeness settings. It avoids being a tautology and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'No network requests', which sets it apart from data-fetching tools.

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 a clear trigger for use: 'useful when calls feel slow or stuck'. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance, but the context is sufficiently clear for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool.

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