glass_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. It fully explains the deep parameter's side effect ('spin up and tear down the default backend's headless display') and the `overall` verdict downgrade logic, going far beyond a minimal statement of purpose.

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 long but every section contributes: action, usage, return structure, and verdict semantics. It is front-loaded with the purpose and ends with necessary structured data details, though the dense sentence describing `overall` could be simpler.

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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly specifies the return shape: `report`, `sections` with check fields, status values, omission rules for `remedy`/`remedy_action`, and the `overall` verdict. It also covers the deep behavior tradeoff, leaving no ambiguity for invocation.

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 schema already documents the `deep` parameter with 100% coverage, including its effect and default. The description repeats essentially the same meaning ('spin up and tear down the default backend's headless display') without adding new information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Diagnose') and resource ('the glass environment'), and clearly states the output: per-check status and how to fix missing items. It distinguishes itself from the many action-oriented sibling tools by focusing on self-diagnosis of startup failures.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to self-diagnose a glass_start failure', providing a clear trigger scenario. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context makes the primary use case unambiguous.

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