agent_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and describes the 'unknown' reporting behavior for current-session visibility, offering useful behavioral context beyond the minimal.

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 that convey the core purpose and a key behavioral note without any wasted words. 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 the tool has 2 parameters with enums and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a behavioral detail but lacks parameter explanations and return value information. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0% description coverage and 2 parameters with enums, but the description provides no explanation of their meaning or usage. The description adds no value beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from enum values 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 it inspects SIFS agent artifact readiness, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_context or agent_print by focusing on readiness inspection, though it doesn't explicitly name 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 indicates it is read-only and reports unknown when readiness cannot be proven, providing some context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly advise when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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