stemlab_doctor

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

Annotations only say non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive; the description explains why: inspection returns a retained background job rather than an inline result, which is genuinely useful context an agent cannot infer from the flags. It also discloses that base effect flags are none while conditional inference/download effects live in danceflow_component. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary action comes first and the follow-up action follows. Phrasing is slightly telegraphic ('poll danceflow_job_status' reads as a noun phrase rather than 'poll with danceflow_job_status'), but nothing is wasted.

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 rightly omitted, and the description still tells the agent the return is a retained job handle. The permission-flag semantics are the remaining gap, but for an inspection tool with a diagnostic focus this is close to 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?

Schema coverage is 50%. The `arguments` object is effectively empty (no properties, additionalProperties false) and the description adds nothing there, which is fine since there is nothing to explain. For `permissions`, the line 'Base effect flags: none' does tell the agent which acknowledgement flags are relevant, which is real added meaning, but it never explains the individual permission flags or the authorization semantics of acknowledging them.

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 verb and resource: 'Inspect StemLab runtime or registered analysis capabilities'. The scope qualifier 'without starting inference' sharpens what the tool does not do. It does not explicitly contrast with the doctor/diagnostic siblings (rastermoves_doctor, pixelcue_health), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives a concrete usage flow: call this, then poll danceflow_job_status for the retained job. It also flags where to go for conditional effects (danceflow_component). It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming which alternative diagnostic tool to pick.

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