capsule_doctor

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered; the description's 'Read-only' merely restates that. It does add the useful scope detail that the subject is a Docker image, but it says nothing about what is actually verified, whether it needs a local daemon or credentials, or how failures are surfaced.

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?

A single six-word utterance with no filler, and the read-only/scope qualifier is front-loaded. Nothing can be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the result shape, yet it never says what a 'readiness check' inspects or returns. For a zero-arg diagnostic the omission is notable but not fatal.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema explicitly sets additionalProperties=false, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 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?

It names a concrete resource (Docker image) and a concrete action type (a readiness check), so an agent can tell it is a diagnostic rather than a run/demo action. However, it never contrasts itself with capsule_run or capsule_demo, and 'readiness' is left undefined, so the boundary with siblings must be inferred.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus capsule_run or capsule_demo, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'readiness', which is close to tautological.

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