kie_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It reveals the diagnostic checks performed, but it doesn't state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, makes network calls, or how it reports failures. This is a significant gap for a diagnostic tool.

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 tool's purpose, and each sentence adds essential information: what the tool checks and when to call it. No wasted words.

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 tool with zero parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential checks and usage timing. However, since there is no output schema, the description doesn't explain what the tool returns or how results are presented, leaving some context incomplete.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% as an empty object. The baseline of 4 applies here since there are no parameters to explain, and the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 clearly defines the tool as a readiness check for kie.ai, listing specific checks (API key presence and source, API responsiveness, price list fetchability, credit-to-USD rate status). It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as the first action when something is wrong, even though it doesn't name alternate tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this first whenever something is wrong.' This clearly states when to use the tool, but it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for specific scenarios, which would make it a 5.

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