copalibre_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: no API token required, it inspects local configuration, and it connects directly to the database rather than through apps/api. It leaves open whether the writability check mutates anything and does not describe what a failing run returns, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: what it checks, when to run it, and how it operates. The check list is front-loaded in the first sentence and every clause adds information an agent needs.

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?

Complexity is low and the enumerated check categories effectively stand in for output content. With no output schema, however, the description never says what a result or failure report looks like, which is the one remaining gap for a diagnostic tool.

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 is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to add or omit. The description correctly signals that all behavior is environment-derived rather than argument-driven.

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?

States a specific verb (checks) and resource (this CopaLibre installation's configuration) and then enumerates exactly what is verified: secrets, database reachability, JWKS, object storage, and path writability. No sibling among the module_*/descriptor_*/profile_* tools performs installation health diagnosis, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 gives two usage contexts: before starting an installation, and diagnosing an installation that is failing. That is clear positive guidance, but there is no explicit when-not or named alternative tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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