svn_diagnose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', indicating no destructive actions. It lists the diagnostic categories, giving a clear expectation of behavior. It does not mention potential performance impacts or limitations, but the read-only nature and scope are well communicated.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It is front-loaded with the key information ('Read-only working-copy diagnostics') and then elaborates on scope. No unnecessary words.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the expected output by listing the diagnostic areas. The tool is moderately complex (multiple diagnostics), but the description covers the main aspects. It could benefit from mentioning the output format or ordering, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capability.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the 'cwd' and 'paths' parameters. Both parameters are already described in the schema, so no extra value is added.

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 is for 'Read-only working-copy diagnostics' and lists specific diagnostic areas: local status, remote status, HEAD info, and latest log reachability. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings by being a combined diagnostic tool covering multiple aspects.

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 implies usage for diagnostics and notes it is read-only, which suggests when not to use it (modifications). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like svn_status, svn_info, or svn_log, nor does it provide clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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