plur_doctor

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

The annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description discloses side effects and behavior: it resets cached failure state with retry, probes /api/v1/me and decodes token expiry, performs a cross-encoder pass for rerank_eval, and caches verdicts. It also clarifies what the tool does NOT do, avoiding misleading 'healthy' reports. This goes far 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?

The description is long but every sentence carries valuable information: scope, checks, exclusions, alternatives, and behavioral caveats. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured with specific, non-redundant statements.

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 the tool's complexity (diagnostic, with two optional parameters, no output schema), the description explains what the tool reports, what it probes, what side effects occur, and what it intentionally omits. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so per the rubric the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; the schema itself already explains both 'retry' and 'rerank_eval' thoroughly, including cost implications. The description reinforces usage context but does not elevate semantic meaning.

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 starts with 'Diagnose the PLUR ENGINE' and explicitly names the components checked (embedder, hybrid search, remote-store auth), which is a specific verb+resource. It also differentiates from hook/MCP wiring and the CLI 'plur doctor', making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 gives a clear when-to-use instruction: 'Run this first when recall feels off or team engrams stop syncing.' It also explicitly states what it does NOT check (e.g., .cursor/mcp.json, .cursor/hooks.json, MCP tool count) and directs users to the CLI command for those checks, naming an alternative.

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