doctor

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It suggests a read-only operation ('diagnose') but does not confirm idempotency, side effects, or authorization needs. Important behavioral traits are missing.

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 a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded, but the content is too minimal to earn a 5. There is no fluff, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter details, the description is the sole source of context. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any operational constraints. A healthy provider check would benefit from at least indicating output format or typical usage.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero params. The description does not need to add param details, and it correctly omits them. No contradiction.

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 verb 'diagnose' and references 'provider availability and health,' but the meaning of 'diagnose' is vague. It is unclear whether this tool checks status, runs tests, or returns reports. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' and 'extract' only implicitly, but not explicitly enough.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the vague verb 'diagnose'.

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