memshelf_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by enumerating what is checked and that the tool is non-destructive. No contradictions.

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 informative and front-loaded with 'Diagnose the shelf'. While it lists multiple checks, it remains reasonably concise and every sentence contributes useful detail.

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 complexity of integrity checks, the presence of annotations, and an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers tool behavior, scope, and the optional network-dependent flag without needing to explain return values.

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 input schema provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (shelf_path and check_remote). The tool description does not add new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 diagnoses the shelf, listing specific checks (episode schema, digest contract, secrets, ledger consistency, INDEX budget, docshelf structural checks). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on integrity diagnostics rather than retrieval or mutation.

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 provides context: it's read-only, reports findings, and fix nothing. It notes that check_remote is off by default due to network access. While not explicitly stating when not to use, implicit guidance is clear relative to sibling tools.

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