diagnose_environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds context about what is inspected (metadata, lockfile, environment), but it does not disclose return format, depth of analysis, or any non-obvious behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It states the verb and the subjects clearly, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, good annotations (read-only, idempotent), and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It could mention when to use it (covered under usage guidelines), but overall it gives enough context for selection and invocation.

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 100% for the single parameter project_path, and the description does not add extra parameter detail. The description mentions the project concept but not the parameter directly, so it neither improves nor hurts parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 uses a specific verb 'diagnose' and names the resources: metadata, lockfile, and environment consistency. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like repair_environment (which fixes) and compare_environments (which compares), though it does not explicitly differentiate from 'audit'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like repair_environment, check_installation, or compare_environments. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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