doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains how adapters with no non-interactive auth check are handled, and describes the difference between a cheap probe and a real round trip. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or output structure.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides parameter details. No redundant information, and every sentence adds value.

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 a single parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral modes. It could be more explicit about the diagnosis output format, but the output schema likely fills that gap. Some scope details (e.g., which adapters) are implied but not explicit.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does so effectively: the 'live' parameter's default behavior and the effect of setting it to false are both described, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 performs a health probe on adapters and diagnoses unavailable targets. It specifies the resources checked (binary, version, auth, runtime) and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'capabilities' tool, which is described as an always-cheap snapshot.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use live=true vs live=false, explaining the trade-off between thoroughness and cost. It contrasts with 'capabilities' for cheap checks, but does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools.

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