hermes_operator_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly states 'read-only' (non-destructive), but omits many details such as required authorization, rate limits, what happens on failure, or the output format. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of description about what the health check actually does.

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 concise (one sentence), but it is minimal. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices crucial details. The sentence states the core purpose but does not earn its place by providing additional context that would help an agent.

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 a single parameter with no documentation and an output schema that is not described, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'operator surfaces' are, what the health check entails, or how to interpret results. The output schema exists but the description offers no assistance in understanding it.

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 only parameter 'profile' has a default value but no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what the 'profile' parameter does or how it affects the health check.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Run a read-only health check across operator surfaces.' It uses a specific verb ('Run'), indicates read-only behavior, and specifies the resource ('operator surfaces'), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'hermes_operator_status' which likely provides a different view.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools such as 'hermes_operator_status', 'hermes_operator_snapshot', or 'hermes_operator_policy'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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