Doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does almost none of it. It doesn't say whether the check is read-only or side-effecting, whether it starts/restarts the Portal, how long it takes, or what failure modes look like — all of which matter for a multi-component diagnostic.

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?

One short sentence with the purpose front-loaded; the parenthetical CLI hint adds a little orientation without bloat. Slightly terse given the tool's scope, but no wasted 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. However, for a multi-component diagnostic with an undocumented device parameter and no annotations, the description leaves lingering questions about behavior and scoping that the structured fields do not answer.

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 single 'device' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and a null default, and the description only refers to 'the device' in passing without explaining what supplying or omitting it does (e.g., check all devices vs. one). It adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific action (health check) and enumerates the three things checked: adb, the Portal, and the device. It's a clear verb+resource, but it does not differentiate itself from diagnostic-looking siblings like get_device_status, ping_device, or capabilities, so an agent cannot tell which diagnostic to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. With siblings such as get_device_status, ping_device, and capabilities in the same list, the description never says when a full doctor run is preferable to a cheaper single-target check, nor does it state any preconditions.

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