doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Diagnose' hints at a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify state, what kind of diagnostic information it returns, or whether it attempts any connection. The parenthetical clarifies scope but not behavior.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded with the verb 'Diagnose', and the parenthetical adds valuable nuance without bloating the text.

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 with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the tool's purpose and the key distinction it diagnoses. It could optionally note that this tool does not perform reconnection or corrective actions, but given the low complexity, the current description is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema. The schema already fully covers this empty parameter set, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details. The 0-param baseline of 4 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Diagnose') and identifies a precise resource ('Resolve connection') with a meaningful distinction between two connection modes: direct Studio scripting and free-edition in-app bridge. This clearly differentiates the tool's diagnostic purpose from sibling tools like reconnect or inspect.

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 when to use the tool (when connection diagnosis is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives. It does not mention that this is for diagnosis only and not for fixing or reconnecting, leaving the agent to infer the decision boundary.

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