get_diagnostic_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait — that values reflect *actual runtime* state rather than declared configuration, and that unsupported adapters are surfaced — but says nothing about output shape or how missing commands are signalled.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, with no filler or restated title. It is a dense comma-separated list rather than a well-structured statement, which costs minor readability but not length.

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?

With a full output schema and rich annotation coverage, the description only needs to convey purpose and scope, and it mostly does. It still leaves the agent unsure what "diagnostic capabilities" scope contains relative to the timestamp/ROS siblings, which matters in a crowded tool family.

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 takes zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description introduces no misleading parameter-like concepts.

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 sentence names a verb ("Report") and lists content categories (runtime dependencies, command availability, ROS Bridge, unsupported adapters), so the general intent is inferable. However, it never states what resource is being described at a level an agent can act on without seeing the tool name, and the phrasing reads like an internal changelog rather than a capability statement.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing against siblings such as get_timestamp_capabilities or inspect_time_services, even though the naming collision makes differentiation the key selection problem. The agent must guess based on the name alone.

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