td_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks the entire chain, separates distinct failure states ('not running', 'registered but silent', 'answering but refusing the token'), and emits lines that 'name the command that fixes it.' This strongly implies a read-only diagnostic that produces repair guidance. It does not explicitly state permissions or side effects, but the framing is behaviorally informative.

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 opens with a one-line purpose, then the key usage trigger, then the motivating failure mode and state distinctions. It is longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence contributes meaningful diagnostic context rather than padding.

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 parameterless diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description provides the when, why, what it checks, what states it separates, and what the output conveys. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect, though it could be slightly stronger with an explicit statement about whether it makes changes.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about inputs. The zero-parameter baseline applies.

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 mission: 'Check the whole chain — install, index, probe pass, bridge, this server.' It is specific about the resource and the diagnostic nature of the tool, and its scope ('whole chain') implies a distinction from per-component siblings like td_status or td_log, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Run this when something is wrong and it is not obvious which link broke, or before trusting a long build session.' This is actionable and context-rich. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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