okf_doctor_tool

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool produces a report containing score, errors, warnings, and per-rule findings, which implies a read-only diagnostic operation. It does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or how stale_days affects behavior, but the report framing provides reasonable transparency for a simple diagnostic tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output highlights. It could include more guidance, but as far as conciseness and structure go, it is appropriately compact.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, so the description must carry more weight. It does list key return elements, but it omits meaningful context for the stale_days parameter, input expectations, and any behavioral caveats. For a two-parameter tool this is a notable gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'bundle' is the subject being analyzed, but it leaves 'stale_days' completely unexplained. The parameter names offer some hints, but the description adds little beyond the schema itself and fails to define the meaning or acceptable use of stale_days.

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-like resource ('Health report for a bundle') and enumerates concrete output components: score, errors, warnings, per-rule findings. This clearly identifies the tool's core purpose and gives enough detail to distinguish it from generic search or data-retrieval siblings, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs a health assessment of a bundle, including score and rule findings. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention alternatives among the many okf_* siblings.

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