faf_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool reports issues and returns a checklist, confirming it is a read-only diagnostic. No contradictions, and the behavioral description aligns with the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output, then usage condition. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 the tool's diagnostic nature, the description covers what it does, what it returns (checklist), and when to use it. An output schema exists (though not shown in input), so return values are documented elsewhere. No gaps identified.

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?

There is one parameter 'path' with schema description: 'Project path. Sets session context for subsequent calls.' The tool description does not repeat this, but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The added context of setting session context is helpful, raising the score.

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: 'Diagnose a project.faf: report empty or weak slots, common issues, and how to fix each. Returns a prioritized checklist.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like faf_score and faf_about by focusing on diagnosis and actionable fixes.

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 provides a use condition: 'Use this when faf_score is below target and you need to know why.' This helps the agent decide when to invoke. No explicit when-not-to-use is given, but the positive guidance is sufficient.

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