doctor

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the exact dimensions checked (source kind categories, cache staleness, probe-query success) and explicitly bounds the scope with 'Measures retrieval, not correctness.' It does not state whether probes trigger caching/warming side effects, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with zero filler. The enumerated dimensions are dense but each earns its place by telling the agent what the report contains.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the report's contents (source kind, cache age, staleness, probe results), which is enough for an agent to know what to expect. Minor gap: it does not clarify the return format or whether probing has side effects.

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% and there is only one optional parameter, so the schema fully documents the library argument. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('retrieval actually works per library') and enumerates the exact dimensions examined: source kind, cache age/staleness, and probe queries through get_docs. An agent can distinguish this diagnostic from siblings like refresh or get_docs without opening any schema.

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?

Usage context is implied (a diagnostic to run when retrieval seems broken), and the closing clause 'Measures retrieval, not correctness' usefully scopes intent. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., refresh vs doctor) is given, leaving the agent to infer when to reach for this over siblings.

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