Config 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. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail the annotations do not carry: secrets are masked in the output, plus the exact return field set. It stops short of full depth (no notes on partial-config handling), so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Three labeled, front-loaded segments with no filler; the purpose sentence leads. The 'Returns' enumeration is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which slightly dilutes conciseness.

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-parameter, read-only diagnostic with an output schema already present, the description covers purpose, routing, privacy behavior, and expected output. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly does not invent parameter details.

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 states a specific verb (Report) and resource (config keys in ~/.appfactory/config.toml) with precise scope (present/missing, secrets masked). An agent can distinguish it from the many sibling setup_*, env_doctor, and pipeline tools without opening a schema.

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 gives explicit 'Use when' conditions (ASC/Finance key paths, session state, CLI availability) and explicit 'Not for' exclusions that route to named alternatives (setup_status, env_doctor). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives structure a strong definition needs.

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