crosspad_doctor

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description discloses `action=restart_daemon` that stops and starts the daemon and, per the schema, drops open console/cdc handles. That is state-changing and handle-destroying behavior, directly contradicting the read-only/destructive-free annotations. Per the rubric an annotation contradiction scores 1.

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 dense but purposeful: it leads with the role, organizes host vs daemon checks, specifies output shape, and ends with actionable usage guidance. It could be better structured with bullets, but every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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 tool this complex, the description covers the check categories, the `{name, ok, detail, fix}` result shape, the all-or-nothing ok semantics, the trigger for using the tool, and the restart action's consequences. The rich output schema and 100% parameter scchema coverage fill any remaining need.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters 100%: `action` has an enum with detailed semantics and `confirm_token` is explained as echoing the token from a confirmation_required reply. The tool description reinforces `restart_daemon` but adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly identifies crosspad_doctor as an environment diagnostic: it enumerates host checks (hil interpreter, versions, ESP-IDF, platform-idf root, build dirs, firmware age, simulator), daemon checks (udev/dialout, port locks, audio visibility), and daemon process reporting. 'Run this first when a device tool errors' also gives it a distinct role next to build/flash/devices siblings.

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 explicitly says to run this first when a device tool errors, and explains exactly when action=restart_dae `restart_daemon` is appropriate: after installing crosspad-hil or adding a scenario, or when the daemon accumulated OS resources. It lacks an explicit when-not or named alternatives, so not a 5.

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