run_doctor

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

Lists the specific checks performed, which is valuable beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive (reads only) or mention any side effects. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden; it is good but could be more explicit about safety.

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?

Two sentences only, each serving a distinct purpose: listing checks and giving usage guidance. No redundancy, highly efficient, and front-loaded with key information.

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 health check tool with no output schema, the description covers input and purpose well but omits what the output looks like (e.g., report format, success/failure indicators). Given the complexity, a brief note on return value would improve completeness. Otherwise, adequate for usage.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond grouping the checks; it provides context for 'includeIdleProbe' but not deep semantics. Adequate but not improved beyond 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 clearly states the tool runs a 'comprehensive production health check' covering specific areas (SMTP auth, IMAP auth, IMAP IDLE, SQLite index, runtime policy). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_connection_status' by noting the latter is for quick protocol-only reachability.

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 'Use to fully diagnose or validate the setup' and advises preferring 'get_connection_status for a quick protocol-only reachability check', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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