tap_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds rich behavioral context: return format with W3C Web Annotations, verdicts, and recursive sub-tap diagnosis for pipe taps via body.children[]. It also warns about expensive unscoped scans. No contradiction 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?

The description is concise but packs information: purpose, return format, usage guidance, caveat, and pipe-specific behavior. Each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully details the return structure including the annotation format and verdicts. It covers pipe taps with recursive diagnosis. It also references a sibling (tap.explain) for static analysis. Given the tool's complexity, the description is 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description adds meaningful context beyond schema: reinforces that site and name should always be specified, and explains that omitting them scans all user taps (expensive). This adds value over the bare schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Health check for taps. Runs each tap's examples against its health contract. Returns {ok, annotations[], issues[], suggestions[]}.' It gives specific return structure and verdicts. It distinguishes from siblings like tap_run (runs the tap) and tap_explain (static analysis).

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: 'Use when tap.run returns empty/error rows, or after forge.save to validate.' Also gives a strong caveat: 'ALWAYS specify site+name — unscoped checks scan all user taps and are expensive.' Provides an alternative: 'Use tap.explain for static analysis without running.'

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