Doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only says 'auto-fix'. It does not state what a fix mutates within .m7/, whether changes are reversible or backed up, or whether permissions are needed. For a tool that can write to project metadata, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the gaps in other dimensions rather than being a structural flaw.

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?

A mutation-capable tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain what is checked, what is fixed, and what the user gets back. None of that is present beyond the one-line summary.

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%, so action/verbose/project_path are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of auto-fix, without explaining the check/fix/report distinction or the consequence of each action; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names two concrete verbs (диагностика, авто-исправление) and a concrete resource (.m7/ directory), so the agent knows exactly what domain the tool operates on. It does not distinguish itself from plausible siblings like mcp_m7_validate or mcp_m7_check_errors, which also sound diagnostic.

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 gives no guidance on when to pick Doctor over validate/check_errors/safety_verify, nor any precondition such as whether .m7/ must already exist. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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