glass_doctor

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

The description discloses that the deep option spawns and tears down a headless display, implying side effects, which aligns with the annotations. It also details the return structure (sections, checks, statuses, remedies) and overall verdict, providing full transparency about behavior.

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 well-structured and concise, covering purpose, usage, parameter, and output in a logical flow. It avoids redundancy and each sentence adds value, despite being somewhat detailed for the return structure.

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?

The description fully explains the tool's functionality, optional deep behavior, and the complete structure of the returned data, including status values and remedy fields. It leaves no ambiguity for an agent using this tool.

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 only parameter 'deep' is fully described: 'Also spawn and tear down the default backend's headless display to verify it actually starts (slower). Default false.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter semantics are complete and clear.

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 states the tool diagnoses the glass environment and reports per-check status, with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the self-diagnosis use case, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other actions.

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 instructs 'Use this to self-diagnose a glass_start failure', providing a precise when-to-use scenario. It also explains the optional deep check, making the tool's intended usage unambiguous.

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