doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the diagnostic areas and 'Diagnostik' implies a read-only check, but it does not describe the output, side effects, credential sensitivity, or failure behavior. This is thin for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler words. It is slightly cryptic due to abbreviated terms like 'creds' and 'antrean AI', but every listed item contributes to the diagnostic scope.

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 zero-parameter tool, invocation is straightforward and the listed components give enough context to select it. However, since there is no output schema and no annotation coverage, the description should at least hint at what a diagnostic result looks like; it currently does not.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 the diagnostic scope explicitly: connection, credentials, store, version, and AI queue. It identifies the resource (WA) and is readily distinguishable from narrower siblings like connection_status or ai_config, though it never explicitly frames itself as the aggregate health-check tool.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings such as connection_status, ping, or ai_config. The reader must infer that 'doctor' is for combined diagnostics, but the description never states this or rules out alternatives.

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