run_diagnostic

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that destructive tests (kick_connection, ntd_reset) require confirm=true, which is critical safety information. Yet it omits other behavioral aspects like return values, side effects, or the effect of the wait parameter, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, includes a warning, and a parameter hint, earning every word.

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 generic escape-hatch tool, the description covers the core purpose, a key behavioral caveat, and a parameter hint. But it lacks explanation of wait/timeout semantics and return format, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more operational context.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains service as 'a site alias | service_id' and gives examples for test, and indirectly clarifies confirm via the destructive test note. However, wait and timeout_s are left unexplained, so the description only partial compensates for the schema gap.

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 runs any diagnostic by name, with specific examples, and positions it as an 'escape hatch' equivalent to the portal's Run Tests buttons. This distinguishes it from the specific sibling tools like ntd_status and loopback_test by framing it as the generic runner.

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 gives contextual guidance: it is the generic run mechanism, and destructive tests require confirm=true. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer a specific sibling over this generic one, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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