whodb_platform_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: what it inspects (login, workspace, manifest) and that the workspace argument applies per-call without mutating defaults. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth prerequisites, hence 4.

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?

Ten-ish words establish the purpose up front, followed by usage, outputs, and the parameter note. It is tight and front-loaded, though the final sentence largely duplicates schema text already present.

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?

For a read-only readiness probe with a full output schema and 100% covered parameters, the description supplies everything the agent needs: when to invoke it, what it reports, and how the optional workspace override behaves.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single nested workspace param is fully documented in the schema. The description restates the same per-call/no-default-change semantics, adding little new meaning beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('hosted WhoDB MCP readiness') and enumerates the checks performed (login, selected workspace, manifest availability, warnings). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like whodb_platform_status or whodb_platform_setup_status, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use this when platform tools fail or before a workflow.' That is actionable context, but it offers no explicit when-not guidance and does not name alternative diagnostic tools, so it stops short of 5.

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