stellar_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or safe, whether it mutates config, what specific checks it performs, or what the output looks like — a significant gap for a diagnostic command.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the missing behavioral context.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it is thin. It is minimally adequate for a zero-required-parameter diagnostic tool but leaves unclear what problems it detects or what it reports back.

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 single optional parameter (configDir) is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but none is needed here.

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?

States a specific verb and scope ('diagnose and troubleshoot CLI and network issues') with a qualifier about what it looks for ('common problems'). The purpose is clear, but it does not differentiate itself from neighboring diagnostic tools like stellar_network_health or stellar_network_info.

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 on when to reach for this tool versus the many network/config siblings. 'Troubleshoot' implies a context, but there are no explicit triggers, prerequisites, or alternatives named.

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