system_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavioral context: every capability is optional, the console runs keyless, and 'problems' should not be read as a fault list. It does not explicitly say the tool is read-only or side-effect-free, but the diagnostic framing and output schema cover most of what an agent needs.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. A few phrases are stylistic ('before concluding the world is quiet'), but they reinforce the intended use case rather than add fluff.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies the important scenario and interpretation context. It does not explicitly state safety or side effects, but the diagnostic nature and output schema make it sufficiently complete for correct 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters.

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 opening line communicates that this tool reports configuration state, missing items, and the exact fix line, which clearly identifies a diagnostic/configuration-audit purpose. It does not use a direct verb like 'inspect' or 'diagnose', and it does not name sibling tools, but the scenario-oriented framing distinguishes it from query tools.

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?

It gives a concrete usage condition: use this when a layer looks empty before concluding the world is quiet. It also adds an important interpretation rule: a long problems list is not a fault list and missing optional keys are not defects. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this one, keeping it below a 5.

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