tap_doctor

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it runs examples against a health contract and returns detailed results including W3C Web Annotations. It also notes that unscoped checks are expensive and that pipe taps have recursive diagnosis. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is a single paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, return structure, use cases, warnings, and differentiation from tap.explain. Every sentence adds value with 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?

Given no output schema, description adequately explains return structure with ok, annotations, issues, suggestions, and the format of annotations. It covers pipe taps behavior and provides usage context. Could be enhanced with example output, but still fairly complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining that omitting site scans all user taps and that name is optional to check all taps for the site. No additional info for timeout, but schema already covers it.

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?

Description clearly states 'Health check for taps' and specifies it runs examples against a health contract, returning a structured result. It differentiates from sibling tool tap.explain by saying 'Use tap.explain for static analysis without running.'

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when tap.run returns empty/error rows, or after forge.save to validate.' Warns about unscoped checks being expensive, and advises specifying site+name. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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