run_diagnostics

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly states 'No system mutation — pure read.' Details all checks performed and output structure including health status, per-check status, severity, findings, and remediation steps.

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?

Single paragraph front-loads purpose and output, then details checks and behavior. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Could be split into clearer sections but still effective.

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 diagnostics tool with no output schema, description comprehensively covers what it checks, what the report includes, and how to use results (remediation steps). Complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret.

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?

No parameters exist, so no additional semantic explanation needed. Schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 applies as description adds no parameter info but none is required.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Run' and resource 'local Windy Doctor check battery', clearly states the output is a structured report. Distinguishes from siblings by positioning it as the starting point for debugging paste/transcription issues.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this as the starting point for any "why is paste broken / why is transcription failing" agent flow.' Also implies follow-up actions via remediation steps referencing specific MCP tools.

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