doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what the health check covers by listing the five checks. But it does not state whether the tool has side effects, what it returns, or how it behaves when a check fails. The diagnostic intent is clear, but some behavioral detail is missing.

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 one compact sentence with a front-loaded purpose, a clear list of checks, and a direct usage instruction. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description covers what it checks and when to use it. The lack of an output schema is not fully compensated by the description, since the return shape is not stated, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema is fully consistent with that.

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 a health-check tool with a specific scope: CDP reachability, session state, file input, model names, and project existence. This is much more specific than a generic status check, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'status' tool.

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 an explicit usage trigger: 'Use when something fails.' This is useful contextual guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like 'status' or 'check_file'.

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