doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the odd claim that it 'returns the configuration error', without saying whether that is a fixed behavior, an example, or the current state of the server, leaving the agent unsure what output to expect.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance: both sentences describe a status condition rather than the tool's action. Nothing is wasted in length, yet nothing useful is conveyed either.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description needed only to state the diagnostic purpose and what it reports. Instead it is ambiguous enough that an agent cannot tell whether the tool returns an error unconditionally or checks configuration and reports problems.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. No parameter-level information is missing because none exists.

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 text 'No configuration is loaded. Returns the configuration error.' reads as a runtime status message rather than a statement of what the tool does. It never says the tool diagnoses configuration problems, and 'doctor' alone is too generic to infer that, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish it from servers_list or project_info.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools. At best it implies the tool surfaces a configuration error, but it never tells an agent to call it to diagnose setup problems or what to do instead if configuration is fine.

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