guardvibe_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's inspection scope (MCP configs, hooks, etc.) and behavior across scopes. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but 'Check' implies no side effects. Minor omission: no mention of permissions or network calls.

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 concise sentences: purpose, sibling differentiation, and usage guidance with example. No redundant words, front-loaded with purpose.

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 the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively explains what it does, when to use which scope, and how it differs from a sibling. It does not describe return values beyond format options, but the example implies a report. Slightly incomplete for a security check tool.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (path, scope, format). The description adds an example call but does not provide significant new semantics beyond what the schema already offers for path and format. The scope explanation in the schema is equally detailed.

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 'Check AI host security: MCP configurations, hooks, base URL hijacking, environment variable exposure' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'audit_config' by saying 'NOT the same as audit_config which checks application config files'.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this vs sibling: 'NOT the same as audit_config'. Provides guidance on scope parameter: 'Use scope=project (default) for project-only, scope=host to include shell profiles and global AI configs.' Includes example call.

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