config_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 usefully discloses that secrets are masked (a real safety-relevant trait) and that output is a presence/absence report, but says nothing about permissions, whether it reads repo or runtime config, or whether it mutates anything.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the masking caveat appended where it matters. 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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't enumerate return values, and it still sketches the report's shape (present/missing keys, masked secrets). For a zero-parameter diagnostic this is close to complete, though a hint about which config source it inspects would help.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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?

Specific verb ('Report') plus resource ('config status') and concrete output content (present/missing keys). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from related siblings like config_set, env_doctor, or setup_status.

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 diagnostic framing implies you run this to check config health, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as env_doctor for environment issues or config_set for fixing the gaps it finds.

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