trove_doctor

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

The description explicitly states it is 'read-only', lists the specific checks performed, and describes the output ('findings with severity and fix'). This fully discloses the behavioral traits beyond what structured fields provide (none exist).

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the key purpose ('Read-only health and safety audit') followed by a list of checks and output. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the audit scope, specific checks, and that the output includes severity and fix. Completeness is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 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 states it performs a 'Read-only health and safety audit' and lists specific checks (missing key, cleartext secrets, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on secrets and snippets.

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 implies use for auditing repository health, and the sibling tool list shows other tools are for operations on secrets, making the use case clear. However, no explicit when-not or alternatives are stated.

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