agent_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the tool is read-only and reports 'unknown' when readiness cannot be proven, which adds transparency. However, it does not cover permissions, error handling, or other side effects, leaving gaps.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description omits return format or structure. It mentions 'reports unknown' but not what a successful report looks like. For a simple tool with two enum parameters, the description covers the minimum but lacks completeness regarding output and prerequisites.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not elaborate on the two parameters (artifact and target) or their enum values. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, forcing the agent to infer from enum names alone.

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 inspects 'SIFS agent artifact readiness,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on readiness inspection rather than context (agent_context) or printing (agent_print). The phrase 'read-only' reinforces its non-destructive nature.

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 usage for inspecting readiness without side effects, but does not explicitly state when to use or alternatives. It mentions 'current-session visibility' as a condition that may affect output, providing some contextual guidance, but no direct comparison to siblings.

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