System Doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing it as a safe read operation. The description adds important behavioral context: the tool can always be invoked regardless of the active profile, and it reports specific diagnostic areas. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences. Front-loaded purpose ('Report macctl's health') immediately followed by a detailed list, then a crisp usage directive. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description clearly enumerates the diagnostic information returned (TCC statuses, helper reachability, profile tiers, audit log location, version). It also addresses availability and when to use it, making it self-contained for an agent.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explains the tool's purpose and output scope, which is sufficient given no parameters are required.

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 'Report' as a specific verb and identifies a clear resource (macctl's health), listing concrete components (TCC permissions, helper reachability, profile tiers, audit log, version). It distinguishes itself from sibling system tools by focusing on permission/helper diagnostics and availability regardless of profile.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use this first when other tools fail with PERMISSION_MISSING or HELPER_UNAVAILABLE' and notes it's 'Always available regardless of profile.' This provides a clear contextual trigger and differentiates it from alternatives that may be blocked in certain profiles.

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