doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description builds on this by explaining the optional deep ACP handshake with specific steps (start → initialize → newSession). This adds context about what 'deep' does, enhancing transparency without contradicting 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?

The description is extremely concise, with only two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose with a colon-separated list and then gives a direct usage instruction. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple one-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers the report contents (plugin version, client capabilities, launcher resolution) and the optional deep handshake. It also provides usage context. It could be slightly more explicit about the output format, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this simplicity.

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% because the only parameter 'deep' has a clear description in the schema, explaining the handshake behavior. The tool description only mentions 'optional deep ACP handshake,' which mirrors the schema but adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: 'Report setup and health diagnostics' and enumerates specific diagnostic areas (plugin version, MCP client capabilities, cursor-agent launcher resolution). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like delegate and cancel, which are action-oriented, making purpose unambiguous.

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 'Use when delegation fails or agent.found is false,' providing a clear trigger for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of full 5 criteria.

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