get_diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds context by listing what types of diagnostics are covered. However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as response structure, whether data is real-time, or any auth requirements beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient: it clearly states the resource and categories. It lacks details about return values, but the format parameter provides some indication, and no output schema exists to impose additional burden.

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 100%, with both 'host_id' and 'format' having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond these schema definitions, so it meets the baseline without enhancement.

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 identifies the tool as providing site diagnostics, listing specific categories (crawl errors, DNS issues, server problems). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hosts or get_indexing, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when site health or technical issues are needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use or comparison with alternatives. It relies on the distinct resource name to differentiate from siblings.

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