coeus_runtime_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'secret-safe' as a safety property but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects the network probe may have, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a diagnostic tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word contributes to the purpose, and there is no fluff or redundant detail.

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?

The description is too vague for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not specify the format or content of the returned diagnostics, nor does it clarify how this differs from coeus_healthcheck. An agent cannot fully assess whether this tool meets its needs or how to interpret the result.

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 schema covers the only parameter (probe_network) with a minimal description 'Probe network', but the tool description adds no additional meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance understanding of the parameter's purpose or effect.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and a resource ('runtime, CLI, git, catalog, and provider readiness diagnostics'), which distinguishes it from siblings like coeus_healthcheck or coeus_stats. However, it could be more explicit about what 'readiness diagnostics' actually entails, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when it should be selected over other diagnostic tools like coeus_healthcheck.

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