get_instance_diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that data is live and mirrors the Performance homepage, but does not disclose cost, call frequency, or what happens on multi-node clusters beyond the schema's all_nodes flag.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and contents, then the concrete backing endpoint. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by naming the three data categories and the underlying XML source. It stops short of describing return shape or pagination, but for a read-only diagnostics call it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter (include, raw_xml, all_nodes) carries a descriptive schema string with defaults and value examples. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (live instance performance diagnostics) and enumerates the data it returns: JVM memory, semaphore pools, cluster node status. It also anchors the tool to a known surface (/stats.do Performance homepage), which helps distinguish it from siblings, though it never names the adjacent tools like get_mid_server_health or get_performance_analytics.

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 'live' framing and the /stats.do reference imply this is a real-time troubleshooting read, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer that this is for current-state diagnostics rather than historical metrics.

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