ansible-diagnose-host

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It implies a non-destructive health assessment but does not explicitly state modifiability, permissions needed, or return format. The description adds some context (e.g., check categories) but lacks explicit behavioral traits.

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 concise, starting with a clear summary line followed by a well-structured list of arguments. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and the front-loaded purpose aids quick understanding.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers all 7 input parameters, but could elaborate on the overall workflow or dependencies between arguments. The description is complete enough for most use cases.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter (e.g., 'List of check categories (system, network, security, performance)' for checks, 'Compare against stored baseline' for baseline_compare). These explanations add meaning beyond parameter names, though some are brief.

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 'Comprehensive health assessment of target hosts,' which directly captures the tool's purpose. It specifies a verb ('diagnose' implied) and resource ('hosts'), and distinguishes from siblings like ansible-gather-facts or ansible-health-monitor by focusing on diagnostic assessment.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like ansible-health-monitor or ansible-gather-facts, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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