doctor

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

With no annotations available, the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals that the tool performs a check of certain conditions, but it does not specify the outcome—whether it returns a boolean, a report, or throws an error. Side effects and required context are also omitted.

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 brief, but brevity here results in under-specification rather than conciseness. The information is dense and cryptic, presenting a list of conditions without clear structure or explanatory framing.

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 output schema, no annotations, and cryptic descriptions of what is checked, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, expected input, or return value. It needs to explain the check's outcomes or operational context.

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 baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter details, and no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 mentions an 'anti-drift check' and lists specific conditions, but it uses highly domain-specific jargon ('cash/trunk frontier', 'open loops') without defining them. It lacks a clear verb+resource structure and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'system_audit' or 'preflight_action'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the check includes, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context. There is no mention of exclusions or when not to use it.

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