list_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It indicates the listing includes which diagnostics are destructive, which is useful domain context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation itself is read-only or describe the return format or error behavior. The description carries a moderate burden and partially meets it.

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 concise, using two short statements with no filler. The first part states the action and output fields, the second explains the parameter. It could be structured more clearly (the parameter note reads like an afterthought), but every word earns its place.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention the output format (e.g., an array of objects) or how to interpret 'destructive' in the results. Given the sibling tools, it could also hint at the workflow (list diagnostics then run one), but that is not strictly required.

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 input schema only defines 'service' with type string and default 'all'. The description adds valuable meaning: 'service: a site alias | id | "all"' explains the accepted values. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by providing essential usage guidance for the 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 the tool lists diagnostics for a service, using the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'diagnostics AussieBB offers'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_services (lists sites) and run_diagnostic (executes a diagnostic). The parenthetical '(name, summary, which are destructive)' clarifies the output fields, though slightly ambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used before running a diagnostic, nor does it reference sibling tools like run_diagnostic or list_services. The only extra information is the parameter explanation for 'service', which is not usage context.

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