doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the scope of the checks performed. However, it says nothing about whether the call is purely read-only, how failures are surfaced, or what the results look like, leaving meaningful gaps for a diagnostic tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every item listed earns its place by naming a distinct check, and nothing is redundant.

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 and no annotations, the description should ideally indicate what a result contains or how a failure is signalled. It enumerates the checks but leaves the agent guessing at the response shape and how to act on the outcome.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies; there is no parameter surface the description needs to compensate for.

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 verb 'Check' plus a specific list of resources (Ufora host, authentication, API readiness, current-course discovery) makes the tool's job unambiguous, and it is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like whoami or list_courses. It lacks any explicit contrast with those siblings, but the diagnostic framing separates it well.

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?

There is no stated condition for when to run this versus other tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or ordering (e.g. 'run before other tools to verify setup'). The diagnostic nature hints at troubleshooting use, but the agent is left to infer it entirely.

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