doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact items checked (config, auth, persistence) and explicitly stating it does not invoke the Cursor model, which goes beyond the annotation hints.

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, well-structured sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes an explicit exclusion, making it concise and highly scannable for an agent.

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?

For a parameterless, read-only diagnostic tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and the explicit non-action. It lacks detail on the output format, but given the simple nature and no output schema, this is a minor gap. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 the baseline is 4. The description provides context on what the tool inspects without needing to explain parameters, which is appropriate for this parameterless diagnostic tool.

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 the tool checks Cursor Relay configuration, authentication, and persistence directory, and explicitly notes it does not call the Cursor model. This distinguishes it from sibling run-management tools that interact with models, providing a specific verb and resource scope.

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?

The description implies a diagnostic role by listing what it checks and what it avoids, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on pre-flight checks or when to prefer it over other operations, leaving usage context to inference.

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