doctor

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that, including the effort dial ceiling, the silent trimming via a committed project.godot line, per-client config freshness, and runtime-bridge liveness. This is rich behavioral disclosure that helps the agent understand what the tool checks and potential gotchas.

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 dense paragraph, but every clause contributes meaningful information—purpose, report categories, and usage timing. It is slightly long but not wasteful. The structure front-loads the purpose and ends with actionable guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value. It enumerates the report contents extensively (edition, effort dial vs ceiling, tool counts, dock-disabled, server/port/auth, config freshness, bridge liveness). However, it does not specify the exact output format or data types, which would make it fully complete.

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, so the input schema is trivially fully covered. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none.

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 as 'Beckett self-diagnosis' with the specific goal of answering 'why can't the agent see or do X?'. It is distinct from sibling diagnostic tools like get_scene_tree or game_logs by aggregating multiple diagnostic dimensions into one call.

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?

Explicitly says 'Run this FIRST when tools seem missing, counts look wrong, or calls fail unexpectedly.' This gives strong when-to-use guidance, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, so it falls short of a 5.

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