omnifocus_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool has no side effects and will not launch OmniFocus, which is critical for an agent to understand. It also describes the return format and that it probes health. However, it does not mention whether it makes network calls or requires specific permissions, but for a diagnostic tool, the provided details are sufficient.

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 tightly written with no extraneous words. It starts with the core purpose, then gives usage guidance, return format, behavioral notes, and an example, all in 6 sentences. Every sentence provides essential information for the agent to correctly use the 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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return structure, the logic of summary, and instructs to surface remediation verbatim. It also clarifies the no side effects and distinction from other tools. The only minor gap is not stating potential performance impacts, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description clarifies this by showing an example call with no arguments. According to the baseline guideline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description adds no further parameter information but is consistent with the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as a self-diagnostic for omnifocus-mcp setup, probing server health and OmniFocus connection. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'internal_status' by specifying its use for triage when other tools fail, and from 'app_launch' by clarifying it does not launch OmniFocus. The verb 'probes' and resource 'server health and live OmniFocus connection' are specific and clear.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: 'only use to triage why another tool is failing.' It also explicitly advises against using it as a substitute for the actual work tool and recommends preferring 'internal_status' when only server metrics are needed. This direct comparison with a sibling tool gives the agent a clear decision criterion.

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