all_services_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'auto-fix' indicating mutation/destruction, but does not detail side effects, permissions required, or what exactly is fixed. This is insufficient for a tool performing automated repairs.

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 fluff, but it is overly brief. It could include more context without becoming verbose, striking a better balance between conciseness and informativeness.

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 has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about behavior, return values, and usage examples. It is incomplete for making an informed tool choice.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'autoFix' parameter beyond its name. Whether setting it to false means analysis-only or something else is unclear. The description should explain the parameter's 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 explicitly states the action ('Analyze and auto-fix') and the target resource ('stuck queue items across all services'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'queue_diagnostics' which might be more focused or per-service.

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 for stuck queue items but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, despite potential overlap with 'queue_diagnostics' or other tools.

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