doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the connectivity test, token validation, and environment-variable fallback, but does not describe failure behavior, expected network side effects, or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives the only parameter detail. There is no redundant or filler 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 simple one-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: what it tests, what it validates, and how token fallback works. Minor failure-mode details are omitted but not critical for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well for the single parameter by explaining that token is optional and that omission triggers testing of PLAUSIBLE_API_KEY from the environment. That adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 phrase, 'Test connectivity ... and validate API token,' and names the target resources (Plausible Cloud or self-hosted instance). It clearly distinguishes this diagnostic tool from the analytics-oriented sibling tools.

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?

It gives clear diagnostic context: test connectivity and validate a token, with an explicit fallback to PLAUSIBLE_API_KEY when no token is passed. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like check_for_updates, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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