deployado_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and closed-world scope. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is a fixed checklist, not configurable, and it returns both structured results and a roll-up. It does not describe permissions or timing beyond the deep-probe note in the 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 three efficient sentences: purpose first, returned diagnostics second, usage guidance third. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping and triage guidance is front-loaded.

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, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so explicitly by listing the roll-up contents. Combined with the schema for the deep parameter and annotations for safety, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including UUID-or-slug input for app_id and the deep-probe semantics. The description only says "against one app" and does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the parameter-level work.

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 a specific verb and resource: running a fixed diagnostic checklist against one app. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling getters by describing an aggregate roll-up covering deployment status, builds, server health, HTTP probing, env vars, and placement. The CLI mirroring note adds context without becoming an alternative reference.

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 usage trigger: "Use this as the first stop when triaging 'app X is acting weird'." That establishes when to prefer this aggregate diagnostic over individual tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use it, which keeps it from a 5.

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