docshelf_doctor

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only by default, that fix=true applies only safe fixes (prune, delete, rebuild), and that other findings remain report-only. This aligns with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds valuable context beyond 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 well-structured with a clear purpose, list of findings, and separated behavior for read-only vs fix mode. It is concise but could be slightly more compact; still efficient at about 100 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool checks (six categories) and the fix behavior. It also mentions sorting for stable diffing, adding useful context without needing to describe return format.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description explains the 'fix' parameter's effect and implicitly mentions 'shelf_path'. It adds meaning beyond the schema by detailing which fixes are applied.

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 checks the shelf for drift and optionally applies safe fixes, listing specific findings (stale meta, orphaned splits, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rebuild_index by covering both diagnosis and selective fixes.

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 implies usage (read-only by default, pass fix=true to apply) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like docshelf_rebuild_index. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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