contentrain_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds context: it is read-only, details the heavier nature of the usage analysis, and notes filesystem restrictions—all beyond what annotations provide.

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, well-organized sentence that front-loads the main purpose, lists checks, explains the optional parameter, and ends with a constraint—no wasted words.

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 lacks details on the return structure (e.g., format of 'structured checks'), which may hinder agent understanding of how to process results. Error handling and edge cases are also omitted.

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% for the single parameter, but the description adds valuable context ('deeper analysis of content-key references in source files (unused keys, duplicate dictionary values, locale coverage)'), enhancing meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly defines the tool as a 'Project health report (read-only)' and lists specific checks (git, node, structure, model parse, etc.), making its purpose explicit and distinguishable from sibling tools like contentrain_scan or contentrain_validate.

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 provides clear guidance on optional parameter usage and a key constraint ('Local-filesystem only'), but it lacks explicit advice on when to use this tool versus specific siblings, missing a chance to differentiate.

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