setup_doctor

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations. It details that each step runs independently, all failures are reported, specific API checks are performed, the 'Reply to reviews' permission is indicated by an empty list, and fixes are provided. This fully discloses the tool's 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?

Although the description is longer than typical, it is information-dense and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, followed by a breakdown of what is verified and why. Every sentence contributes unique value, with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description provides all necessary context: when to use, what steps are taken, what edge cases are handled, and what the output will include (exact fixes). The description is complete for an AI agent to determine when and how to invoke it.

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 the description naturally cannot add parameter-level details. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and outcomes rather than inputs.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Diagnose StorePilot's store credentials and report exactly what is missing.' This clearly distinguishes the tool as a diagnostic tool, and the detail about verifying each setup step independently adds precision.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Run this first whenever a Play tool returns empty or unexpected data.' This clearly indicates when the tool should be used, even though no alternative tools are listed in siblings.

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