reach_doctor

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

The description discloses that it returns status, backend, and a fix prescription, implying a read-only diagnostic operation. However, with no annotations, it does not address potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The behavioral traits are partially transparent but not fully detailed.

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 a single, informative sentence that covers the purpose and output. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured. Overall, it earns its place 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description completely explains what the tool does and what it returns (status, backend, fix prescription). There are no hidden behaviors or missing details; it is fully self-contained.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does and returns, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool.

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 performs a health-check on every channel, returning status, backend, and fix prescription. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like reach_read, reach_search, etc., which imply different operations.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The purpose is implied through the description, but alternatives are not discussed. Given the sibling list, it is the only health-check tool, so confusion is low, but the lack of explicit guidelines prevents a higher score.

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