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 details the six checks, their format (ok/warn/fail with advice), and mentions sidecar mode and write-tools gate specifics. Slightly more context on sidecar implications could elevate it, but overall it's transparent.

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 usage conditions and returns structure in a few sentences. It contains all necessary information without excessive verbosity, though the list of checks could be slightly shortened without losing clarity.

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 complexity (six checks, diagnostic purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers when to use, what it returns, and when not to use. No gaps are apparent for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 and 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Baseline is 4, but the perfect alignment with the schema and clear utility earns a 5.

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 states 'full setup diagnostic' and lists the six specific checks. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'health-check' by labeling it as a lightweight smoke test, so the agent knows this tool is for detailed diagnostics.

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 provides 'Use when' conditions (specific errors or before querying/exporting/writing) and 'Do not use when' (lightweight smoke test), with a named alternative tool (health-check). This gives clear decision criteria.

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