Doctor Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying exactly what diagnostics are performed (schema, WAL, orphaned edges) and that recommendations are generated, going beyond the annotation details.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Run system health diagnostics') and enumerates specific checks without redundant or vague language.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return format or content of the report beyond hinting at 'recommendations.' For a tool with a single optional parameter, this is acceptable but leaves room for agent uncertainty about the output structure.

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%: the only parameter 'project' is described as 'Optional project identifier.' The description adds no additional meaning or usage context for this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('Run', 'check', 'generate') and names concrete diagnostic targets (schema integrity, WAL status, orphaned edge counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_graph, which likely focus on narrower validation concerns, and the mention of 'recommendations' adds unique purpose.

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?

The description implies usage for system health diagnostics but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as validate_graph or audit_project_db. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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