algernon_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the tool reports current provider/model plus reasoning)Skip and notes that local Ollama is auto-detected, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not explicitly state whether the call is read-only or what output shape to expect, but for a zero-parameter status tool these are minor gaps.

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 two sentences and roughly thirty words, front-loading the core what/why before the actionable when. Every clause earns its place, with no repetition of schema fields or annotation data.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool reports)Skip and when to call it. It does not specify the return format or whether the tool can be invoked outside error scenarios, but those are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has zero properties, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to document parameters and does not introduce any. The provider list is contextual rather than parameter documentation.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a diagnostic status query that reports which provider/model the fleet will use and why. It enumerates the possible outcomes (Anthropic key, OpenAI-compatible key, local Ollama), which distinguishes it from the sibling dispatch/plan/upgrade tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'report', but the intent is unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this first if a dispatch returns an error.' This provides strong situational guidance and implies a diagnostic-first workflow. However, it does not name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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