all_services_diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions 'auto-fix' implying mutation but does not disclose behavioral details like permissions needed, destructiveness, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies state.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be expanded slightly to cover parameter behavior without becoming verbose. Still, it is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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?

Given the tool is simple (one optional boolean param, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it fails to explain what 'stuck queue items' means or the exact behavior when autoFix is true/false, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'autoFix'. The description mentions 'auto-fix' but does not clarify whether it controls the fix action or if omitting it defaults to analysis only. The added value over the schema is minimal.

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's action: analyze and auto-fix stuck queue items across all services. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like queue_diagnostics which likely target specific services.

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 such as queue_diagnostics or queue_list. It lacks any 'when-not-to-use' or context signals that would help an agent choose correctly.

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