glass_doctor

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

The description discloses important behavior beyond the annotations: returns structured report sections and an overall verdict, reports statuses such as ok/warn/fail/skip, and warns that non-default backend failures only affect the overall verdict as warnings. It also explicitly notes that deep starts and tears down the default display, which is a useful side-effect disclosure.

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 compact and information-dense: three sentences cover purpose, return shape, statuses, backend-failure nuance, and the deep flag's side effect. It is appropriately sized for the tool's behavior, though the output-structure explanation could be slightly more organized.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the important return fields, overall verdict, status values, and deep behavior. It also gives enough context for branching on 'overall.' It does not explain the exact values of 'overall' or when 'deep' should be used, but these are minor gaps.

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 fully describes the single 'deep' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds only the phrase 'deep also starts and tears down the default display,' which largely mirrors the schema's own description, so the parameter semantics do not get much additional value from the description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Diagnose setup or launch failures' and explains the return format. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from diagnostic-looking siblings such as glass_logs or glass_capabilities.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when diagnosing setup or launch failures. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but it does explain the optional 'deep' mode and its effect, giving the agent enough context to decide.

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