doctor_report

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool is read-only, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' Beyond that, it adds useful behavioral context about the nature of the diagnostic (checks for drift, hook wiring, settings schema, freshness) and the structured form of the output, which is not fully derivable from the annotation alone.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains zero filler or redundant content aside from the harmless repetition of 'Read-only.' Every clause adds information about the tool's purpose, output, or usage.

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, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it runs, what the report covers, why you would use it, and its safety profile. The annotations and schema further support completeness, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies per the rubric. The schema is fully covered (100%) and the description does not need to clarify any parameter details because none exist. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and use case.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and names a precise resource ('consumer-project doctor diagnostic'), while detailing the report's contents (install drift, hook wiring, settings schema, discovery manifest freshness). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_tests or telemetry_report by identifying a unique diagnostic target and purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use to triage a misbehaving install.' This provides clear context for the appropriate use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the sibling tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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