neurover_diagnostics

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false / openWorldHint=true; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the exact data collected, an explicit privacy exclusion list (no email, passwords, cookies or prompts), that the artifact is written into the Downloads folder, and that nothing is transmitted to the author automatically. That last point is the behavior an agent most needs to know before invoking it.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then privacy guarantees, then the return value and the human follow-up step. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the title or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating exactly what is returned (a file path in Downloads) and what the caller must do next. Combined with the privacy scope and write-to-disk behavior, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add useful meaning by clarifying that the report payload is gathered automatically rather than supplied by the caller, which heads off any attempt to pass content in.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Сохранить отчёт" / save a report) and immediately scopes it with the trigger condition "если что-то не работает". It then enumerates the exact contents (version, OS, login modes, app connections, recent-action log), which distinguishes it from nearby diagnostics-adjacent siblings like neurover_update_check or neurover_auth_status.

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 trigger condition for use is stated explicitly ("if something isn't working"), and the final sentence clarifies the follow-up workflow: the user must send the file to the author themselves. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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