Get blocker diagnostics for an issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the HTTP operation and authentication class, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. The authorization class is a useful addition, but overall transparency is adequate given annotation coverage.

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 short, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence captures the core purpose. The second sentence provides technical details (operation and auth). It is concise but could be more front-loaded with essential 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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to cover return values. However, it lacks explanation of what blocker diagnostics are, how the parameter is used, and how this tool relates to sibling diagnostics tools. The single parameter's semantics are missing, making the description incomplete for effective agent use.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions are present. The description does not explain the 'path.id' parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer that it is an issue ID. This is a significant gap for a tool with a single required parameter.

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 'Get blocker diagnostics for an issue', specifying the resource (blocker diagnostics) and the action (get). However, it does not differentiate from sibling diagnostics tools like pc_get_issues_by_id_diagnostics_wakes or pc_get_issues_by_id_diagnostics_subtree, which have similar names.

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 versus alternatives. The description only includes the HTTP method and authorization class, but no context about use cases or scenarios where blocker diagnostics are appropriate.

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