run_doctor

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, detailing the specific checks performed (SMTP auth, IMAP auth, IMAP IDLE probe, SQLite index integrity, runtime policy validation). 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?

The description is extremely concise, with only two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 is comprehensive for the tool's purpose, covering the checks and usage. However, it does not specify the output format or return value, which might be needed for a diagnostic tool. Given the lack of output schema, a brief mention of the result type would improve completeness.

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 descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description mentions 'SMTP auth, IMAP auth, optional IMAP IDLE probe' which corresponds to includeSmtp, includeImap, and includeIdleProbe, but adds minimal extra semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Run a comprehensive production health check covering SMTP auth, IMAP auth, optional IMAP IDLE probe, SQLite index integrity, and runtime policy validation.' It provides a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('comprehensive production health check'), and distinguishes from the sibling get_connection_status by noting it is for a quick protocol-only check.

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 says 'Use to fully diagnose or validate the setup' and recommends an alternative: 'Prefer get_connection_status for a quick protocol-only reachability check.' This provides 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.