Run workfile doctor

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

The description provides solid behavioral context: it validates multiple artifact categories and checks cross-record references, and critically mentions that checkPaths performs a filesystem walk which can be disabled on large repos (a cost/perf disclosure). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description adds the performance-aware behavior about the filesystem walk beyond what annotations convey.

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, information-dense sentence followed by a directive clause. Every word earns its place: it enumerates the validation targets, mentions cross-record references, and states the trigger condition. No filler, no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 complete enough for this tool's complexity: single optional parameter fully documented in schema, output schema present (so return value details are covered elsewhere), and annotations declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile. The validation scope is enumerated explicitly. A pre-completion diagnostic tool with good schema/annotation coverage doesn't require much more.

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% and the single parameter checkPaths is fully documented in the schema itself (verify paths exist, skip filesystem walk on large repos). The description complements the schema by mentioning the filesystem walk implication ('checkPaths' behavior) in the context of validation scope. Since there's only one well-documented param and schema coverage is complete, the description doesn't need to add much here.

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 title and description clearly state the verb+resource: 'Run workfile doctor' and 'Validate Work, Docs, History, Memory, agent instructions, CI templates and cross-record references.' It enumerates the specific things validated, distinguishing it from sibling tools like project_card_list or project_memory_list, which are individual-file operations. The 'Run before declaring work finished' clause gives the purpose strong operational context.

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 clear when-to-use guidance ('Run before declaring work finished'), establishing it as a pre-completion verification step. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the tool's unique validation role among siblings (none of which do cross-record validation), direction is reasonably clear. A named alternative or 'when not to use' would push this to 5.

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