agy_doctor

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

Description explicitly states 'read-only' and 'bounded', which are behavioral traits, but lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid run_id. With no annotations, the description provides moderate transparency.

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?

Single sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with the action verb 'Return', and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description adequately states it returns read-only diagnostics, but omits explanation of the parameter and does not provide usage context. It is minimally complete.

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 description completely fails to explain the 'run_id' parameter, which has 0% schema coverage. The agent has no semantic understanding of what run_id represents (e.g., a specific diagnostic run or session).

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?

Description clearly states it returns 'bounded, read-only bridge and Antigravity diagnostics', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like agy_status and agy_result by focusing on diagnostics, though the exact nature of 'bridge and Antigravity' could be more detailed.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions where it should be preferred or avoided, leaving the agent without strategic context.

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