doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists what is checked, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, whether it is read-only, or what the output looks like. The description adds value but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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, focused sentence that lists the areas checked. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description only needs to convey purpose and high-level behavior. It does that effectively by listing the four areas checked, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role. Slightly more detail on what 'readiness' entails could improve it, but it is complete enough.

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 schema provides no groundwork. By calibration, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add any confusing parameter information.

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 'check' and clearly identifies the resource (configuration, link secret, local bridge, and Chrome/CDP readiness). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_diagrams, sync_document, and open_diagram by indicating a diagnostic purpose.

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 when to use the tool—when checking system readiness—but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to understand its role as a diagnostic tool.

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