maintenance_diagnose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a non-mutating diagnostic action by saying 'Report... without auto-fixing it', which is the most important behavioral trait. It does not go deeper into side effects or execution characteristics, but the output schema helps cover the result side.

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 tight sentence with a front-loaded verb, a precise list of report categories, and an explicit scope exclusion. Every part earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

The tool is low-complexity and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it leaves the `stale_after_hours` threshold implicit and gives no hints about when to prefer this over sibling diagnostic/reporting tools. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 never mentions the `stale_after_hours` parameter or how it influences the report. The agent has to infer from the parameter name that it controls the staleness threshold, which is not explicitly connected to the tool's behavior.

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 verb 'Report' and names specific reportable items: stale plan candidates, collisions, approvals, and unresolved graph work. It also explicitly excludes auto-fixing, which distinguishes it from any mutation-oriented sibling tools.

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 phrase 'without auto-fixing it' implies a diagnostic-only usage context, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus related siblings like health, status, or list_approvals. No alternative tools or exclusion conditions are named.

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