cloudpin_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is changed' while adding genuinely new context: the tool reports 'each with its fix' and shortens account IDs, which tells the agent what the output will contain and that identifiers are redacted. It stops short of describing result structure or ordering, but adds real value beyond the 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?

It is compact and front-loads the purpose, but the middle is a comma-spliced run-on list ('cloudpin on PATH, shell wrappers, agent hooks missing or out of date, on Windows...') that is harder to parse than a short structured list. No sentence is wasted, but the structure impedes scanning.

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 one-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what is checked, that each finding comes with a fix, and that account IDs are shortened and nothing is mutated. The main missing piece is any hint about output shape or how findings are ordered/severity-ranked.

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?

With one optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents cwd ('Project folder; defaults to the current one'). The description adds no further meaning about how cwd affects which checks run, 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 states a specific diagnostic purpose — explaining why cloudpin may not be guarding — and enumerates the concrete checks (PATH, shell wrappers, agent hooks, Windows execution policy, pin file, per-CLI accounts). It is clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like cloudpin_check or cloudpin_status.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'may not be guarding here'; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to the alternative siblings (cloudpin_check, cloudpin_status, cloudpin_switch_plan). An agent can infer this is the troubleshooting entry point but must guess its relationship to the other tools.

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