foundation_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying it checks 'non-secret' configuration and 'credential presence' (not values), plus allowed-root access. This clarifies scope and avoids ambiguity, with no contradiction.

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 a single sentence that starts with the verb 'Check' and efficiently enumerates six specific areas without filler. While the sentence is long and could be split for readability, every term contributes to defining the tool's scope.

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?

The description thoroughly lists what is checked, providing a solid overview. However, with no output schema, it doesn't mention the return format or how results are delivered, which is a gap for a diagnostic tool. Annotations cover safety, and the scope is clear, but the expected output remains unstated.

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 description coverage is 50%: project_root is described, but check_model is not. The tool description doesn't explain check_model's role or connection to the listed checks, so the agent must guess its meaning. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'check' and lists six distinct resources or aspects being examined, making it clear this is a diagnostic tool. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'commit' or 'scan_changes' by focusing on model configuration, credentials, connectivity, and protection status.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state conditions like 'when you suspect connectivity issues' or mention sibling tools as alternatives, leaving the usage context implied rather than stated.

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