marketplace_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Diagnose' suggests a read-only health inspection, but the description does not state that it is non-destructive, whether it requires special permissions, what 'health' means, or what side effects (if any) it may have.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then efficiently enumerates the systems covered. Every part of the sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The description names all target components, which gives a solid sense of scope for a no-parameter tool. However, with no output schema, it should also indicate what the caller receives (e.g., per-component status report) and how this relates to sibling tools like marketplace_repair. Those details are left to inference.

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 there is no parameter surface to document. The schema coverage is complete for an empty schema, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's scope rather than parameter details.

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 ('Diagnose') and a clear resource ('system health') with an enumerated set of target components: Database, VideoFactory engine, Chrome browser stream, and Multi-Agent MCP client registries. It is clearly a health-check operation, distinct from query/repair siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when diagnosis is appropriate, or that marketplace_repair might be the follow-up if issues are found. The only signal is the word 'Diagnose,' which implies a health-check context.

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