mt4_doctor

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

The description clearly states the tool is read-only and safe, using 'without mutating anything' and 'Read-only and safe'. It also details what it checks (registry, secrets-file, SSH, etc.), providing full behavioral transparency. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the entire burden and meets it well.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Diagnose...'), followed by details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (not shown but present), the description is complete. It covers what the tool checks, that it is read-only, and when to use it. For a diagnostic tool, this suffices for the agent to decide to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. According to guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information but provides context for why no parameters are needed (it diagnoses the existing setup). The 100% schema coverage is satisfied.

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 diagnoses the mt4ctl setup without mutation, and lists specific checks (registry, secrets-file, SSH, systemd units, data directories). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying when to run (when terminal is unknown or mt4_status looks wrong), implying its unique role as a deeper diagnostic tool.

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 explicitly says when to run this tool: when a terminal is unexpectedly 'unknown' or when mt4_status looks wrong. It implies alternatives (mt4_status for normal checks) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list other alternatives, which would be ideal.

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