doctor

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value beyond that: it discloses a side effect ('makes one short HTTP probe to the configured LLM endpoint when a key is set') and explains the nuanced readiness semantics (optional_for_coordinator / optional_for_email, coordinator vs direct path). This is rich behavioral context not available from 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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining content is dense but mostly earns its place. The closing 'Returns:' block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, costing a little conciseness.

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 zero-parameter, read-only health check with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call it, how to interpret `status`, the optional-check semantics, and the probe side effect. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description correctly does not fabricate any.

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 names a specific resource and action — a session health check — and equates it to `run.sh doctor` for agents without shell access. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by defining what `status` values mean and what the tool's overall job is.

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 states explicitly that this is 'the first call of a session' and when to hand over to the `invest-setup` skill (`needs_setup`). It also clarifies that missing LLM key/mail credentials do NOT trigger `needs_setup`. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `status` tool, but the usage context is clear.

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