diagnostics

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It details what each level returns (e.g., 'server-side timing metrics + top bottlenecks' for perf), mentions the <15ms SLA for status, and explains that the default 'full' preserves pre-consolidation behavior. It also clarifies which parameters apply to which levels (session_id ignored for perf/memory). This is thorough.

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 moderately long but well-structured: it starts with the general purpose, then lists each level with its output, provides a default, and ends with an example and sibling references. Every sentence adds value, though some could be more concise.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values for each level. It covers parameters (2, none required), clarifies dependency of session_id on levels, and mentions SLA. For a tool with moderate complexity (multiple modes, optional session ID), it is sufficiently complete.

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 100% (both parameters described). The description adds value by specifying that 'level' defaults to 'full', indicating that 'session_id' applies only to certain levels, and providing an example usage. This goes beyond the schema.

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 it inspects server and browser state, lists five specific diagnostic levels (status, full, perf, memory, errors), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool browser_window and resource strudel://docs/tools. This makes its purpose and scope very clear.

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?

It explains when to use each level (e.g., 'level=status returns a quick snapshot'), provides an SLA, notes the default behavior, and gives an example. It also tells when not to use this tool (for screenshots, use browser_window; for tool listings, use strudel://docs/tools). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to avoid using diagnostics entirely.

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