server_doctor

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

The description discloses default behavior (cached metrics, read-only by default) and explains the autoFix, dryRun, and force parameters. Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) align with default behavior, and no contradiction is present.

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 concise with two efficient sentences, followed by a list and key details. It front-loads the purpose and then provides necessary context without superfluous text.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format (findings grouped by severity with remediation commands) and covers all key aspects of tool behavior, making it complete for the given complexity.

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 each parameter well-described. The description adds context about cached vs live data and alternative tool usage, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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?

The description clearly states the tool runs proactive health analysis on a server, listing specific checks (disk trending full, high swap, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool server_audit, which does a full scored security audit.

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?

It specifies when to use cached vs live data via fresh=true, and explicitly says to use server_audit for a full security audit. This provides clear guidance on alternatives.

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