papercanvas_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does useful work by stating 'read-only' and by explaining the output taxonomy (blocking / advisory / environment) and that suggested patches are proposed rather than applied. It does not say how expensive the multi-check sweep is, whether it renders all formats or just checks renderability, or how findings are ordered or capped.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: the first enumerates the checks, the second defines the output contract and the read-only guarantee. The scope statement is front-loaded and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does explain the three finding classes and the presence of suggested patches. What it omits is the meaning of the 'path' input and the granularity/pagination of findings. Overall a solid but not airtight fit for a single-input diagnostic 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 0% — the single required parameter is documented only as an untyped-in-practice string titled 'Path'. The description never clarifies what that path points to (a canvas file, a project directory, a document ID) or what forms are accepted. With a 1-param schema that tells the agent nothing, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource ('aggregated quality diagnosis') and enumerates the checks it bundles: hard validation, FC001-FC008 lint, font coverage/substitution, renderability. That distinguishes it from the narrower siblings papercanvas_lint and papercanvas_inspect. It loses a point because the object being diagnosed (the 'path') is never identified as a canvas file, document, or directory.

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?

'Aggregated' implies this is the one-shot umbrella call rather than calling lint/inspect/render separately, and 'read-only' signals it is safe to run. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement that it should be preferred over the individual sibling tools, and no mention of prerequisites or cost before running the whole sweep.

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