workbench_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only diagnostic operation and the listed targets add useful context, but the description does not disclose side effects, return format, or whether any monitoring state is refreshed as part of the inspection.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and clearly enumerates the three inspected areas, making every word useful.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description is mostly self-sufficient and clearly enumerates the scope of inspection. However, with no output schema and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks information about what result to expect and when this tool is the right choice among the many siblings.

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 and the schema coverage is vacuously 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool inspects rather than any inputs.

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 names a specific verb, 'Inspect', and concrete resources: local runtime, worker heartbeat, and persisted monitoring state. It is clear about what the tool examines, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling diagnostic tools like workbench_status or workbench_watch.

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 the many sibling tools. The description states what it inspects but not the conditions or context in which an agent should choose workbench_doctor over alternatives.

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