origin_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions diagnosing connectivity but does not specify whether the tool makes live requests (though ping_origin parameter hints at this), requires authentication, or is read-only. The behavioral traits are under-specified.

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, direct sentence of 8 words, front-loading the purpose with no extraneous detail. Every word earns its place.

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 6 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is quite minimal. It does not explain the output format or the optional behavior like ping_origin. While output schema reduces burden, the tool's overall diagnostic flow is not fully conveyed, leaving gaps for a complex tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond listing the areas (configuration, status file, connectivity), which maps to parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'Diagnose' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Origin bridge configuration, status file, and connectivity'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like origin_ping (simple ping) and origin_bridge_* (task management), providing a clear scope.

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 implies diagnostic use through the name 'doctor' and the listed areas, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like origin_ping or other bridge tools. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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