doctor

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explicitly defines the return object and the meaning of 'ok', which is useful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions, leaving those gaps unfilled.

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 reasonably compact but includes the extraneous sentence about other operations being run snippets, which is not specific to this tool and could confuse the agent. It is not front-loaded with the key purpose; the first sentence does state it, but the trailing context dilutes focus.

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 simple diagnostic tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description plus schema cover the essentials: purpose, output structure, and parameter semantics. It lacks any mention of error cases or environment assumptions, but these are not critical for basic 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'project_id' is thoroughly described in the schema. The main description adds no extra parameter context, so the 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 identifies the tool as local health and configuration diagnostics and states the report format. It differentiates from 'run' and 'docs' via the SDK context, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'status', leaving ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 gives a general context ('local health diagnostics') but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The reference to other operations as 'run' hints at an SDK pattern but does not guide selection between this tool and siblings like 'status' or 'deploy'.

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