doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior claim — auth state is reported 'without secrets' — but says nothing about cost, latency, or the fact that the optional ACP handshake spins up a session (that detail lives only in the schema).

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the checks in a scannable order with no filler. It is slightly dense as a laundry list, but every clause names a distinct diagnostic area, so nothing is wasted.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what will be reported, which effectively previews the return contents. The main remaining gap is not explaining the format or granularity of the report, but the coverage is otherwise adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'deep' and 'workspace' are fully documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description only loosely gestures at the 'deep' parameter via 'an optional ACP handshake' and never mentions the workspace scan, adding little beyond structured data.

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 names a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates exactly what is reported: Node and bridge versions, Cursor CLI discovery, auth state, and an ACP handshake. This is clearly a diagnostics tool, distinguishable in intent from the sibling 'delegate' and 'cancel' actions, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied — the list of checks signals 'run this to troubleshoot or verify your setup' — but there is no explicit statement of when to call it, when a deep run is warranted, or how it relates to the sibling tools. An agent can infer the context but is given no routing guidance.

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