Diagnose a Harness Relay MCP client setup plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful behavioral guarantee: it does not read or modify client configuration. It also clarifies the operational mode, 'from explicitly supplied probes', and the output style, 'machine-readable setup report', providing context beyond the annotations.

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, tightly written sentence that fronts the core purpose and the highest-value constraint upfront. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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?

This is a complex tool with ten parameters, seven required, and a nested facts object, yet the description gives no guidance on how to assemble or interpret those parameters. Even though output schema and annotations exist, an agent would likely struggle to call this tool correctly without understanding what 'probes' are and how the required strings relate to the diagnostic process.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only alludes to 'explicitly supplied probes' without detailing any of the ten parameters. It does not explain what 'facts' means, how the booleans should be set, or what values like relayEntry or endpointDescriptor represent, leaving the agent to infer entirely from names and enums.

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 states a precise verb ('Return'), a concrete resource ('a machine-readable setup report'), and a distinctive scope condition ('from explicitly supplied probes without reading or modifying client configuration'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling diagnostic or planning tools like doctor or setup_plan by emphasizing that no client configuration is read or changed.

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 when to use the tool: when a non-invasive, probe-based setup report is needed and no configuration access is desired. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative, state when NOT to use this tool, or explain how it contrasts with sibling tools such as setup_plan or doctor.

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