doctor

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the operational trigger and the specific diagnostic scope, which is meaningful value on top of the structured data. No contradiction with annotations.

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 terse sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and diagnostic scope, the second gives the trigger condition. Zero waste, efficient, and the critical information is placed first.

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?

Complete for a diagnostic tool: purpose, scope, and trigger are all stated, the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, and annotations carry the safety profile. Minor omission is that the return/output format isn't characterized, but with no output schema and a simple diagnostic, this is negligible.

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 100%, and the single 'deep' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the ACP handshake sequence and what it adds to output. The description text adds no parameter detail, but the schema already carries the full burden, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (diagnose) and resource (delegation setup) plus the exact scope of inspection: plugin version, MCP client capabilities, cursor-agent launcher resolution. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools delegate and cancel, and the title reinforces it with 'Diagnose Cursor delegation setup'.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Run when delegation fails or agent.found is false.' This tells the agent precisely when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the siblings (delegate, cancel) are semantically distinct operations that don't need exclusion.

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