collect_diagnostic_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool writes a diagnostic manifest into a timestamped vmcp_diagnostics directory, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects like directory creation or overwrite behavior, environment requirements, permissions, or failure behavior.

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 that communicates the core action, the collected artifact types, and the output location without filler or redundancy. Every phrase adds information.

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?

The tool has six parameters, no annotations, and only one schema-described parameter, yet the description does not cover the remaining parameter semantics or provide routing/usage context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but it does not compensate for missing input semantics and sibling differentiation.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate for the six opaque parameters. It indirectly hints at timestamp and output_dir through the output path, but it leaves run_name, timeout_s, vivado_path behavior, and reuse_audit_from_manifest effectively unexplained.

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 names the action ('Collect') and a specific set of resources (audit inputs, manifests, waivers, log tails) plus the output manifest path. It is specific enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like collect_report_bundle or collect_build_artifacts, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as collect_report_bundle, run_project_audit, or validate_diagnostic_bundle. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues that would help an agent decide between related collection tools.

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