doctor

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

The description lists the checks performed but does not disclose behavioral aspects such as side effects (likely none), error handling, output format, or required permissions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and falls short.

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 extremely concise, using a single line with bullet-style check items. It is front-loaded with 'Preflight:' but could be phrased more clearly. It earns its space but sacrifices 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 no output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It only lists checks, omitting whether it returns success/failure, a report, or throws on failure. This is insufficient for effective use.

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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds meaning by naming the checks, which is adequate. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero parameters.

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 'Preflight: DB found? readable (Full Disk Access)? Things URLs enabled?' clearly indicates a health check tool that verifies database accessibility, permissions, and URL configuration. It distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools (e.g., add_todo, get_item) by being a diagnostic utility.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, typical contexts (e.g., before other operations), or when it should be avoided.

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