glass_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool diagnoses and reports status, and for the deep parameter, it specifies that it will 'spin up and tear down the default backend's headless display', which is a temporary side effect. However, it does not mention any other potential side effects or resource usage for the non-deep mode.

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 concise at two sentences, with the primary purpose stated first and the optional parameter behavior in the second. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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 explains the high-level output ('per-check status + how to fix anything missing') but does not detail the format or fields of the return value. Since there is no output schema, the agent might need to infer the exact structure, which could be incomplete for programmatic use. The tool's complexity is moderate, and additional detail on the checks would improve completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (deep) already described in the schema. The description adds context by explaining that deep mode 'also spawn and tear down' and is 'slower', which is valuable beyond the schema description. The optional nature is 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 explicitly states the verb 'diagnose' and the resource 'glass environment', and specifies the output as 'per-check status + how to fix anything missing'. It also provides a clear use case: self-diagnosing a glass_start failure. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like glass_screenshot or glass_logs, which are not diagnostic.

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 says 'Use this to self-diagnose a glass_start failure', providing a clear context for when to use the tool. It also explains the optional deep parameter's behavior and trade-off ('slower'). While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the explicit use case is sufficient for guidance.

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