heliograph_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation is non-mutating ('change nothing') and read-only ('read access is not write access'), and explains why discovering failure later is costly. It does not describe the exact output or any network side effects, but for a read-only check this is strong coverage.

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 two sentences with the main action and constraint front-loaded: 'Check whether the transport works from here, and change nothing.' The rationale in the second sentence earns its place by explaining when and why to run the tool.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, safety, and timing. The main gap is that the exact return value or result format is not described, but 'check whether it works' makes the outcome reasonably inferable.

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 input schema fully documents the single optional 'estate' parameter, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, placing it at the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether the transport works from here,' and adds a clear non-mutating constraint: 'change nothing.' This makes the tool readable as a connectivity diagnostic and distinguishes it from send-type tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like heliograph_status.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Run this before a long step.' It also conveys an important exclusion: this is read access, not write access, so it should not be used as a substitute for a mutation. It does not name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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