faf_doctor

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

Description indicates the tool 'fixes' issues, implying mutation, but annotations set readOnlyHint=true, contradicting the description. No other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 short and front-loaded with key terms. The emojis add minor noise but do not severely hinder clarity.

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 contradiction between description and annotations, and the lack of detail about what constitutes common issues or how fixing occurs, the description is incomplete for a diagnostic/fix tool. Output schema is absent, but that does not change the gap.

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 for the single parameter path is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. However, it adds no extra semantic context about the parameter's role or optionality beyond the schema.

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?

Description states it is a health check that diagnoses and fixes issues, which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like faf_check or faf_debug, which also perform checks or diagnostics.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as faf_check or faf_debug. The description implies general health checking but lacks explicit usage context.

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