qa_mcp_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds substantial behavioral context: it returns an ordered pass/fail/skipped chain for a defined set of checks, is described as 'secret-safe,' and explains that omitted require_bearer_token defaults to requiring bearer auth for HTTP transports and skipping it for stdio. It still does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or list required permissions, which leaves a small gap for a diagnostic tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently details the check chain and scope exclusions. It is dense but each sentence contributes useful information. Minor redundancy between the first sentence and the following elaboration keeps it from being a perfect 5, but there is no wasted filler.

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 values need not be explained. However, the description leaves most of the 8 input parameters undocumented, and with no annotations, it should explain parameter meaning and safety. Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, several com_* fields), the description is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains one parameter, require_bearer_token, and its default behavior. The other seven parameters (host, port, com_user, com_query, timeout_sec, com_password, com_infobase_path) receive no mention or explanation, leaving most inputs opaque to an agent.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run the secret-safe end-to-end qa-mcp setup doctor.' It then enumerates exactly what the doctor checks and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling diagnostics by stating that 'Platform, COM and private-suite diagnostics are intentionally outside the standalone route.' This gives an agent a precise, unambiguous scope.

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?

It provides clear context: this is for the standalone qa-mcp setup route, and it lists the checks performed. It also gives an exclusion: Platform, COM, and private-suite diagnostics are outside the route. However, it does not name an alternative tool or state conditions like 'use this before X' or 'prefer com_connector_doctor when Y', so it stops short of explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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