doctor

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/destructive, but the description adds the crucial side-effect disclosure that `request=True` triggers EventKit consent dialogs and per-app Automation probes — behavior an agent could not infer from the schema. It does not contradict readOnlyHint (no data is mutated), but it does flag a hidden user-visible effect, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the safety-relevant default. Every sentence adds information the agent needs; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the one parameter and the prompt side effect. Minor gap: "per-surface" is never defined, so the agent doesn't know which surfaces/domains are diagnosed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the only parameter — and it does, explaining what `request=True` actually does (permission prompts, EventKit consent, Automation probes) and the recommended cadence ("once to grant"). Without this text the boolean would be opaque.

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 names a specific verb and resource combination ("Diagnose per-surface macOS permissions + health") and adds the value proposition of "exact remediation." It is clearly distinct from the sibling action tools (mail, notes, reminders) and from the lighter `ping`/`usage` utilities, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 explicit guidance for the parameter's two modes: default is "Read-only and prompt-free," and `request=True` should be used "once to grant" permissions. What is not covered is when to reach for this tool rather than a sibling diagnostic like `ping`, `usage`, or `audit`.

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