brain_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it checks health and returns issues, suggesting a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., if it modifies state), required permissions, or any limitations. The description is minimally transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists specifics and output format. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (prioritized list of issues with fix instructions). Parameters are covered. It lacks mention of whether the tool can be called repeatedly or any performance implications, but overall is complete for a diagnostic tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by explaining that workspace_path enables package.json analysis for openclaw cross-promo, exceeding the schema description. Baseline 3 plus extra context justifies 4.

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 uses specific verbs and resources ('Check the health', 'reports', 'returns prioritized list') and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like brain_diff or brain_predict by focusing on health diagnostics and actionable recommendations.

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 explains what the tool does and what it returns (issues with fix instructions), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Use cases are implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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