agent_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and reveals a key behavioral trait: it reports 'unknown' when readiness cannot be proven. This adds significant value beyond the bare minimum, though it omits details like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words.

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 covers the tool's purpose and a notable behavioral aspect (read-only, unknown reporting), but it lacks explanation of the two enum parameters and the return format. Given no output schema, this is a gap; however, for a relatively simple inspection tool, it is minimally adequate.

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 input schema has 2 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the meaning of 'artifact' or 'target' parameters. Despite having enums, the description adds no context about parameter semantics, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('SIFS agent artifact readiness'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It adds nuance by noting it is read-only and reports 'unknown' for current-session visibility, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like agent_context or index_status, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 use when checking artifact readiness but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., agent_context or search). No when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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