doctor

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

Annotations already convey read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: each check reports PASS/FAIL, the first failure carries a remedy, and providing a ref enables an additional reachability check. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists all checks and the output behavior without unnecessary words. It is concise and structured effectively for quick understanding.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations declaring read-only behavior, the description is complete. It covers the full scope of checks, the PASS/FAIL output format, and the remedy behavior, leaving no significant gaps.

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 schema has one optional 'ref' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by stating that 'with a ref' reachability of that character is checked, but it does not fully specify the expected format or what 'ref' refers to. Partial compensation for low schema coverage warrants a 3.

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 diagnoses why something is not working, listing specific checks (python, DNS, outbound HTTPS, and reachability of a character with a ref). This distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying exact diagnostic resources and implied use case.

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 implies when to use it (when something is not working in these specific areas) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides clear context without exclusions, which fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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