markovo_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 disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of whether the call is read-only, whether it requires credentials itself, whether it is rate-limited, or whether it mutates any state. The one useful hint is that it inspects client, service, and API-key paths, which at least scopes the check.

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?

A single seven-word sentence with no filler and the key scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is arguably under-specification rather than genuine tightness, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry the burden of explaining what comes back from a readiness probe and what the agent should do with a failure. Instead it names only the categories checked, leaving the agent unable to interpret results. With no annotations either, the definition is too thin for a tool meant to gate other operations.

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 per the calibration baseline a 4 applies. The schema is an empty object with nothing to misinterpret, and the description appropriately avoids inventing arguments.

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 gives a concrete verb ("Check") and enumerates the resources being checked (client, service, API-key), so the agent knows this is a diagnostic/readiness probe. It is clearly distinguishable from all ten siblings (convert, job, asset, usage, bundle, capabilities, billing). It stops short of saying what a result means or what the tool actually validates, keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The word "readiness" faintly implies a pre-flight check before conversion work, but that is inference, not instruction, and the sibling list (markovo_capabilities, markovo_convert) offers no routing help.

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