faf_doctor

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

The description claims the tool can 'fix common issues', implying potential modifications. However, annotations declare destructiveHint=false, indicating the tool is non-destructive. This is a contradiction, as 'fix' suggests altering state. The description does not clarify the nature of fixes.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) and directly states the tool's purpose. It is well-front-loaded, though it might benefit from a bit more detail to match sibling differentiation.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on what specific issues are diagnosed or what the output contains, which would be helpful 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 input schema covers the single parameter 'path' with a clear description. The tool description does not add any further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 is for health checking and diagnosing/fixing issues. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like faf_check or faf_debug, which could perform overlapping functions.

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 implies usage when there are issues or for maintenance, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or context is given.

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