run_doctor

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already conveyed. The description adds valuable context: it reports classified diagnoses (authentication_failed vs bridge_unreachable) with specific fixes for connection failures, and mentions it validates runtime policies and capabilities. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first lists the full scope, the second explains the diagnosis output, and the third gives usage guidance. No filler, front-loaded with the primary 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?

The description covers scope, expected output (classified diagnosis + fix), usage context, and alternative tools, which is strong given the tool has no output schema. It might additionally mention that results are returned in a single report, but the current text is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 input schema already describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults and effects (e.g., includeIdleProbe toggles a short wait). The description adds minimal parameter-specific guidance—only that the IDLE probe is 'optional'—so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a comprehensive production health check' and enumerates the exact subsystems (SMTP/IMAP auth, IDLE probe, SQLite integrity, sync-failed drafts, runtime policy validation, capabilities). It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_connection_status by positioning this as the full diagnostic.

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 explicitly states when to use ('fully diagnose or validate the setup') and gives an explicit alternative ('Prefer get_connection_status for a quick protocol-only reachability check'), providing clear when-not guidance.

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