suite_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It lists the subsystems checked, which is useful scope information, but never states that it is a read-only operation, whether checks are slow/expensive, or what happens when a component fails.

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?

Two sentences with the scope front-loaded in a parenthetical enumeration, followed by the usage case. The list is dense but each item earns its place by naming a distinct subsystem.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what is inspected and when to call it. It omits the shape of the result (per-component pass/fail), which the absent output schema would otherwise not supply, but that gap is minor.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no configuration is needed to run the diagnostic.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Diagnóstico REAL de la instalación') and enumerates exactly what is inspected (version, OCR engines, doctrinal corpus, graph, FTS index, citation formatter, MCP tools). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like suite_verificar_actualizacion or suite_telemetria_stats, which an agent could easily confuse with an installation check.

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?

'Usalo para comprobar que todo está disponible antes de prometer algo' gives a clear triggering context (verify availability before committing to an output). It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer when to prefer suite_verificar_actualizacion instead.

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