project_doctor

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

The idempotentHint annotation indicates a read-only action, and the description lists checks, which aligns with a diagnostic tool. However, the 'repair' parameter suggests possible modification, but its behavior is not explained, leaving a transparency gap.

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 a single efficient sentence that lists the checked items without redundancy. It could be slightly expanded for clarity but is not overly verbose.

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 two parameters (one required and one with behavioral implications), missing parameter semantics and usage guidance make the description incomplete. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of parameter context.

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 description provides no information about the two parameters ('projectId' and 'repair'), despite having 0% schema coverage. The agent receives no cues about their purpose or acceptable values beyond the schema itself.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and lists distinct resources (integrity, indexes, source, memory, candidates), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'project_health', which may perform similar checks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to prefer 'project_doctor' over 'project_health'), nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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