diagnose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool collects data, runs all diagnostic rules, and returns a prioritized problem list with fixes. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, but the diagnostic framing and the absence of mutation language are reasonably transparent. It adds useful detail beyond a simple 'diagnose' label.

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 compact, front-loaded with the flagship role, and uses a concise bullet-like list to convey the collected items. Every sentence adds information: scope, inputs collected, processing, output, and usage trigger. There is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the data it uses, the kind of results it produces, and when to invoke it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and use it appropriately.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema has no properties, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what data is gathered during the diagnostic sweep, which indirectly clarifies why no parameters are needed. There is no schema coverage issue.

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 phrase ('Full diagnostic sweep') and identifies the resource/responsibility as the 'flagship troubleshooter.' It enumerates the exact domains covered (arming flags, sensor health, RC channels, battery, GPS, attitude, mode assignments) and the output (prioritized problem list with concrete fixes), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like why_wont_it_arm or get_status.

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 an explicit usage trigger: 'Use this when something is wrong but I'm not sure what.' This gives clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly exclude or reference alternatives, but the use case is distinct enough, and the guidance is practical.

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