pmg_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('preflight read'), the specific endpoints checked, the configuration requirement (PROXIMO_PMG_* config), and a version-specific observation (PMG 9.1). It does not mention side effects, which are absent. Good transparency, though it could clarify that no state is modified.

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 moderately concise, providing essential information in a few sentences without excessive verbosity. It combines purpose, endpoint details, and a version note efficiently. Slightly redundant in referencing endpoints twice, but overall well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (read-only health check) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, endpoints, config requirement, and a version nuance. It does not explain the return format, but the output schema likely covers that. Very minor gaps, such as linking to alternative tools for deeper diagnosis, but overall complete.

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 has 2 parameters with 50% description coverage (only proximo_target has a description). The tool description adds no parameter semantics: it mentions 'node' in the endpoint path but does not explain the parameter's purpose or behavior. This does not compensate for the schema coverage gap, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use the parameters effectively.

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 it is a 'connectivity + credential/permission preflight (read)' tool, specifies the endpoints checked (/nodes/{node}/version and /access/users), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a diagnostic/preflight tool. The verb 'checks' and resource 'PMG connectivity' are specific.

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 explains when to use this tool: for checking connectivity and credentials. It notes that a successful /version call proves both connectivity and credentials. It also provides context-specific guidance (PMG lacks /access/permissions, /access/users is the closest). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like pmg_node_status.

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