faf_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the shape of the result ('Returns a checklist') and that each finding carries a fix, which helps an agent interpret output without a schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the report contents, followed by the trigger condition. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so (a checklist of issues with fixes). Missing only minor detail about ordering or scope relative to the optional path argument.

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 a single parameter ('path') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it fully, including that it sets session context. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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 gives a specific verb (Diagnose) and resource (a project.faf setup) and enumerates what the report contains: missing files, the real score with slot counts, and config issues with fixes. It implicitly separates itself from faf_score by promising the 'why' behind a low score, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It states a clear trigger condition: 'Use this when your score is low and you need to know why.' That is real routing guidance, but it stops short of naming the alternative tools (e.g. faf_score for the number alone) or stating when not to use it.

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