arsenkin_local_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful behavioral constraint by stating 'no provider calls,' which clarifies that the tool operates locally. The verb 'Explain' also suggests a read-only nature, though side effects and safety are not explicitly spelled out.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resources, then appends the key behavioral qualifier. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and behavioral boundary. It could be more explicit about when to choose this tool over siblings, but for a simple local diagnostics tool the information is largely sufficient.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the tool explains (heartbeat, queue, budget), but there is no parameter-specific information needed.

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 the specific verb 'Explain' and names concrete resources: local worker heartbeat, your queue, and configured budget. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating 'no provider calls,' making its scope immediately 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?

The description implies usage for local diagnostics without provider calls, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any sibling tool by name. The 'no provider calls' note provides a behavioral boundary but not a direct usage condition.

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