suite_doctor

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by stressing this is a 'REAL' live diagnosis and by enumerating the subsystems inspected, which tells the agent the check is broad rather than a cached status flag. It does not mention cost/latency or return format.

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, zero waste, with the purpose front-loaded and the usage cue second. Nothing redundant and nothing padded.

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 adequately conveys scope by listing what gets checked. It could go further by sketching the shape of the result (pass/fail per subsystem), but the essentials are present.

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. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly does not invent parameter semantics.

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 (diagnóstico) and resource (la instalación) and enumerates exactly what is checked: versión, OCR y motores, corpus doctrinal, grafo, índice FTS, formateador de citas, herramientas MCP. This distinguishes it from siblings like suite_telemetria_stats or suite_verificar_actualizacion, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use context (pre-flight verification before relying on the suite). It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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