doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one valuable trait — 'The daemon is asked without being started' — implying a non-invasive probe, which is real behavioral information. However, it never states that the tool is read-only, whether the report reflects cached versus live state, or what happens when components are unreachable, leaving significant gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 body is a single dense sentence that front-loads the subject ('This machine's state') before enumerating report contents, with no filler. The inline schema-name parenthetical slightly interrupts the flow, and the jargon load is heavy, but nothing is wasted.

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 output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and enumerating the reported components is a reasonable attempt. But the terms are internal jargon (tier of every guard class, degraded-run counter) that do not tell an agent how to interpret the values, so it is adequate rather than complete for an unannotated diagnostic tool.

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?

One optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('subpath (default: project root)'), so the schema already does the work and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the path argument, its scope, or what happens if it points outside the project.

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 verb is implied rather than stated, but the resource is highly specific: a diagnostic report of this machine's state, enumerated as ce-core handshake, guard-class tiers, index freshness, daemon, and degraded-run counter. That enumeration lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like check, update_check, and flow, which are not described but clearly belong to different concerns.

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 statement of when to run this versus alternatives such as check, update_check, or scan. The narrow behavioral note about the daemon is a caveat, not usage guidance, so the agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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