metis_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists what is verified but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. However, 'health check' and 'returns structured report' imply no side effects. Missing an explicit safety statement, but still informative.

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 extremely concise: a one-line summary, a bulleted list of checks, and a short usage guidance section. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 zero parameters and an output schema (implied by 'structured report'), the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what it checks, and when to use it. No further detail is needed.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to add. The description correctly omits parameter details. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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: 'Run a one-screen health check on Metis.' It lists specific checks (Python version, SQLite DB, API key, etc.), making the scope unambiguous. None of the sibling tools provide the same comprehensive health check, so it effectively distinguishes itself.

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?

Explicit usage scenarios are provided: when something feels broken, before publishing, after a git pull. This guides the agent on when to use this tool versus more targeted diagnostics. No alternative tools are suggested, but the context makes it clear this is a first-line triage tool.

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