kura_doctor

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Health check' implies read-only but never explicitly states it, nor does it mention side effects, performance, or error behavior. It does list the internal state it inspects (index drift, links), adding useful context, but stops short of stating safety guarantees.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('Health check of the kura'), followed by concrete details and usage triggers. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description adequately tells an agent what it does, what it inspects, and when to call it. It could optionally mention that the output includes the listed metrics or that it's a read-only operation, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the lone 'store' parameter is fully described as 'Which kura. Omit for the current one.' The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond that, but given full schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 opens with a specific resource ('kura') and a clear action ('Health check'), then enumerates the exact metrics it returns (memories, resolved/dead links, islands, drift). This precisely distinguishes it from siblings like kura_recall or kura_list, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 provides explicit triggers: 'Call when recall behaves oddly, or when asked about the memory system itself.' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the contexts given are strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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