plur_doctor

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

Discloses that retry resets cached failure state and rerun_eval performs cross-encoder passes (~20 probes per store) and caches a verdict. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint false is appropriate for state reset). Lacks mention of potential side effects beyond those described.

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 informative and well-structured: scope first, then checks, then detail on remote-store auth, usage guidance, and exclusions. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose for the parameter explanations.

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?

Covers what the tool reports (embedder, hybrid search, auth validity) and parameter behaviors. However, no output schema is provided, and the description does not detail the exact return format or error handling, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Both parameters (retry, rerank_eval) are explained in detail beyond the schema descriptions: retry resets cache and retries model load; rerank_eval runs a self-eval gate with cost, probe count, and caching behavior. Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds substantial value.

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 what the tool does: diagnose the PLUR ENGINE (embedder, hybrid search, remote-store auth). It lists specific checks and explicitly distinguishes from the 'plur doctor' CLI command, which checks hook/MCP wiring.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Run this first when recall feels off or team engrams stop syncing.' It also states what the tool does NOT check and directs to the alternative CLI tool for other diagnostics.

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