diagnostics

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains the tool reports specific diagnostic data (host/port, listener status, datagram counts, etc.) and highlights potential issues like sandboxing or port conflicts. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences: first sentence states purpose; second provides detailed scope and context. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description comprehensively lists what will be reported (host, port, listener, datagrams, instances, transmit-gate, network interfaces) and provides diagnostic context (potential conflicts). This is complete for troubleshooting connectivity.

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?

With no parameters (schema coverage 100%), the description correctly omits parameter details. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description does not need to add param info.

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 states the tool provides 'Host + network + listener diagnostics for troubleshooting connectivity,' which is a specific verb (diagnostics) and resource (connectivity). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'transmit' or 'reply' by being diagnostic rather than command-oriented.

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 explicitly states what the tool does NOT do ('Does NOT command WSJT-X'), and outlines what it reports. While it doesn't directly say 'use this when you need to check connectivity,' the context of troubleshooting is implied, providing clear guidance on its non-command nature.

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