kura_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by naming the diagnostic nature ('health check'), the categories of data inspected, and the symptom-triggered use case. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or whether any repair/reindexing occurs, but 'health check' strongly implies diagnostic rather than mutating 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 compact: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise list of diagnostic metrics and explicit usage triggers. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or 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?

For a simple tool with zero required parameters and a fully documented optional parameter, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains what will be inspected and when to use it. The only gap is that it does not describe the return format or explicitly confirm the absence of side effects, but neither is critical for a diagnostic health-check tool.

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 description provides no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states. The optional 'store' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Health check of the kura', and enumerates concrete diagnostic outputs (memory counts, resolved/dead links, islands, index drift). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools like kura_read or kura_recall, which focus on reading or retrieving memories rather than diagnosing system health.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call when recall behaves oddly, or when asked about the memory system itself.' This provides clear invocation context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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