doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add context beyond safety. It adds useful behavior: workspace defaults to server cwd and deep enables no-quota help plus model-catalog checks. It does not describe the output format or clarify ambiguous terms like 'recursion', but the safety profile is already covered.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads the diagnostic targets and workspace default, the second covers the 'deep' flag concisely. The phrasing is slightly cryptic, especially 'no-quota help', which prevents a 5.

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 should clarify what a diagnosis produces or returns, but it does not. Both parameters and the safe read-only behavior are addressed, yet ambiguous terms such as 'recursion' and 'no-quota help' and the lack of any mention of the tool's output leave meaningful gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting the parameters. It explains 'deep' as adding no-quota help and model-catalog checks, and it gives the workspace default as server cwd. It stops short of specifying workspace format or the exact meaning of 'no-quota help', but both parameters receive meaningful semantic context.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Diagnose' and names concrete targets: plugin/CLI/login, recursion, and workspace. It also distinguishes the 'deep' mode by what it adds. It does not explicitly connect to the annotation title's 'Codex delegation setup' or differentiate from sibling tools, so it is not a 5.

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 verb 'Diagnose' and the list of target areas imply when the tool should be used, and 'deep adds no-quota help and model-catalog checks' gives a condition for enabling extra checks. However, it does not explicitly say when to use doctor versus the sibling tools delegate/cancel.

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