doctor

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe, non-mutating operation, and the 'health check' framing is consistent with that. The description usefully signals breadth (it inspects install-vs-running state and flags graph isolation), but adds nothing about permissions, runtime cost, or how results should be interpreted beyond what the enumeration implies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core purpose stated first, followed by a compact list of checked domains. It is dense but every listed item maps to a real sub-check; no padding beyond the slightly run-on enumeration.

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 read-only diagnostic with no output schema and one optional parameter, enumerating the inspected domains gives an agent enough to decide when to invoke it and what to expect it to examine. Return format is undocumented, but that is largely covered by the absent output schema.

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% and the single 'fast' parameter is fully documented in the schema (skip catalog validation and toolchain probes). The description does not reference the parameter at all, so the schema carries the entire burden; baseline 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?

States a specific purpose (a one-shot health check) and enumerates the exact domains it inspects: MCP servers, vault/project mapping, graph isolation, rules catalog, toolchains, telemetry, and clients. This lets an agent know it is a broad diagnostic sweep, but it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like status, hygiene_report, or watchdog.

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 when-to-use guidance is given; 'one-shot' implies a single comprehensive run but there is no stated condition for choosing this over status/hygiene_report. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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