martin_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces the read-only nature. It adds workflow-ordering context but no additional behavioral detail beyond what annotations already communicate.

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 short, high-signal sentences. The core diagnostic purpose is front-loaded, and the sequencing guidance is concise and useful.

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-required-parameter diagnostics tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete enough. The main gap is not explaining how this tool differs from the many diagnostic/support sibling tools.

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 schema provides complete descriptions for all three optional parameters (engine, runsDir, workingDirectory), so the description does not need to compensate. It also adds no extra parameter-level meaning.

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 the tool as read-only environment and run-store diagnostics for the Martin MCP server, and frames it as the expected first call. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from diagnostic sibling tools like martin_status or martin_inspect.

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?

'This is the expected first call before governed work begins' provides clear guidance on when to use it. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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