pve_doctor

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states READ-ONLY behavior and describes the output structure (reachable/version, capabilities map, config, advisory flags). This provides adequate transparency about tool behavior.

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 two sentences, well-structured with the key qualifier 'READ-ONLY' upfront. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description fully covers purpose, behavior, suggested usage, and return value structure, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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% with one parameter (proximo_target). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely restates the target selection logic. 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 it is a 'READ-ONLY preflight' tool that checks API connectivity and effective permissions, reporting capabilities and gaps. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a proactive diagnostic tool meant to run first after installation.

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?

Explicitly advises to 'Run this FIRST after install to verify your config/token before wiring Proximo into an MCP client', providing a clear use case and timing. It implicitly suggests this tool is for preflight checks, but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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