passkey_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does enumerate the diagnostic checks performed and states the return type, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or whether it requires special permissions, leaving some ambiguity about side effects.

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 with a clear opening line, bulleted list of checks, and separate Args/Returns sections. It is somewhat redundant (the deep parameter is mentioned twice) but remains efficient and readable, with no wasted sentences.

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?

For a tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main tool purpose, the specific checks performed, the parameter semantics, and the return type. It lacks detail on error conditions or how to interpret the results dictionary, but overall it provides solid context 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the sole parameter `deep` both in the bullet list ('(deep=True) entry age analysis and bundle file permissions') and in the Args section ('deep: Include extended checks'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare boolean schema, though it could be slightly more detailed.

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 it 'Run diagnostics on passkey and MCP configurations' with a specific verb and resource, and lists distinct checks (config file validity, command availability, keychain permissions, MCP server issues). This differentiates it from sibling tools like passkey_list, passkey_fields, passkey_status, and passkey_wrap_server, which focus on other operations.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (when you need to diagnose passkey/MCP configuration issues) by enumerating the common issues it checks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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