doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, but it only says that availability is 'reported.' It does not disclose whether checks are executed, whether the operation is read-only, or how failures are reported, even though the output schema may document return fields.

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 a single short sentence that front-loads the verb and names the key subjects. There is no filler or repetition, and every word contributes to the core message.

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?

Given a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description conveys the core reporting function, but it omits any context about when to run doctor and how it relates to the sibling tools. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer the operational context.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. According to the rubric baseline for 0 parameters, this is adequate without additional parameter detail in the description.

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 the verb 'Report' and lists specific subjects (parser, SQLite/FTS, optional OCR availability), indicating a diagnostic status tool. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that ingest, search, get, list, or render documents, though the phrase is elliptical.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use doctor versus the ingestion/search/get/list/render siblings. There are no preconditions, recommendations, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that it is a health-check tool only from the name.

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