Diagnostics

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is present, which already indicates a non-mutating operation, so the description need not re-state that. The description adds useful context by enumerating the diagnostic areas, which hints at the breadth of information returned. However, it does not disclose specifics like output format, time costs, or whether it requires network access (e.g., cloudflared checks). With annotations covering the read-only aspect, a 3 is fair: the description adds some value but not deep behavioral insight.

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 a single, compact sentence followed by a usage directive. It is front-loaded with the diagnostic topics, which are the core value, and the usage guidance is appended. It avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for a simple no-parameter tool. The only minor issue is that 'Diagnostics' in the title is redundant with the description, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is relatively complete: an agent knows when to run it (before deploy on failure) and what it checks. However, it lacks details about the output format or how to interpret results, which could be important for an agent deciding whether to proceed. For a status-like tool, mentioning what a successful or failing output looks like would enhance completeness, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously (no properties). The baseline for no parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it effectively communicates the tool's no-input nature. It also indirectly implies that no configuration is needed, which aligns with the empty schema.

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 lists specific diagnostic subjects ('cloudflared, Cloudflare sign-in, default backend and active deploys'), which is helpful, and the verb 'Run' implies execution. However, the tool name 'doctor' and title 'Diagnostics' are generic, and the description does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like 'status' or 'logs', which might also provide diagnostic information. It states what it does but leaves the scope fuzzy relative to alternatives.

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 includes a clear usage trigger: 'Run it before deploy when something fails.' This gives a specific when-to-use condition and mentions the deploy context, aligning with the sibling 'deploy'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from 'status' or 'logs', leaving the agent to infer the right alternative for other diagnostic needs.

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