rms_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns structured JSON and that the repair flag is conditional, and it mentions 'refuses sticky-bind repair'. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only beyond the repair flag, nor does it mention required permissions or side effects on the vault.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and output format, with the usage constraint in the second. No redundant wording.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the seven diagnostic areas, notes that output is structured JSON, and provides a safety constraint. It could elaborate on what the diagnostics examine or any prerequisites, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already described. The description adds the conditional requirement 'only with an explicit project,' which is already in the schema, and adds 'refuses sticky-bind repair,' which is behavioral rather than parameter-specific. Thus it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb 'Run' and resource 'seven-point vault health diagnostics' and enumerates the seven checks (structure, IDs, links, LanceDB, wiki isolation, registry, freshness). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on diagnostics rather than sync, search, or write operations.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs siblings, but it provides a key usage constraint for repair_frontmatter (requires an explicit project). The overall context of when to run diagnostics is implied but not stated, so guidance is partial.

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