com_connector_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that the doctor runs against the authenticated host-agent on the Windows host, performs a read-only query when requested, and returns an elevated regsvr32 remediation command when TypeLib is missing. It does not state whether the tool itself mutates state or requires elevated privileges to invoke, leaving a small gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by scope of checks and remediation behavior. No filler, every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the description covers the host-agent targeting and remediation behavior. The remaining gap is parameter-level detail (credentials, prog_id, timeout) that is undocumented in both schema and description.

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% for 6 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only implicitly references infobase_path and query. It says nothing about user/password credentials, prog_id defaulting to V83.COMConnector, or the timeout_sec parameter, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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 ('Diagnose') and resource ('Windows V83.COMConnector registration') and lists exactly what the doctor checks (registration state, TypeLib presence, COM creation, connection, optional read query). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like query_com or assert_com_count, which exercise the connector rather than diagnose its registration.

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 context makes clear this is a pre-flight/health-check tool run against the Windows host, and the optional read smoke is framed as such. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over qa_mcp_doctor or query_com, nor when the read smoke should be enabled vs skipped.

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