agent_diagnostics

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the tool operates without the VM lease, which is a subtle side-effect/access-pattern detail not captured by the annotations. It also clarifies what specific diagnostic data is read.

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?

A single, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the key operational differentiator ('without acquiring the VM lease') at the end. Every word earns its place; no filler or 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 simple parameter set (one well-documented string), the strong safety profile from annotations, and the absence of an output schema, this description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. The precise scope of what the tool reads is stated, and the lease-free behavior is a critical contextual detail.

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%, with vm_name already described as a unique VM name configured in WIN98CTL.INI. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specifies an explicit verb ('Read') and resource ('guest crash context and supervisor recovery status'), and also notes the key operational constraint ('without acquiring the VM lease'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling diagnostic/status tools and leaves no doubt about what it does.

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 phrase 'without acquiring the VM lease' provides clear context for when this tool should be used: when a non-invasive, lock-free diagnostic read is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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