doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Non-destructive: never writes, never creates a collection, never pulls a model,' and enumerates exactly what is checked. This is thorough and goes beyond what an annotation would provide.

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 well-structured: opens with purpose, gives usage context, lists checks in bullets, and describes return values. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 having no output schema, the description explicitly states the return shape: 'Per-check status (ok bool + detail) and an overall healthy flag.' Combined with clear usage guidance, non-destructive guarantees, and zero parameters, this is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Self-diagnose prerequisites before any org-facing setup.' It clearly states the tool's role as a preflight check and distinguishes it from sibling search/ingest tools by focusing on health checks. The bullet list of checks further clarifies the scope.

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 explicitly says 'The onboarding agent calls this first,' giving clear context for when to use it. It explains the rationale (only ask the org about things needing human decisions) but does not mention explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond the implicit contrast with siblings.

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