doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral boundary — that no installation or launch occurs — which prevents the agent from mistaking a diagnostic for a setup action. It stops short of describing what the check reports.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The capability statement is front-loaded and the limiting clause follows immediately, so an agent can parse intent in one pass.

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 zero-parameter read-only diagnostic with annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that, with no output schema present, the description does not hint at what 'capabilities and workspace' returns, so the agent cannot anticipate the response shape.

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 zero parameters with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies a no-argument invocation.

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+resource: 'Check platform capabilities and workspace.' It is clear what the tool inspects, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related sibling database_capabilities or explain what 'doctor' means beyond this sentence.

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?

One exclusion is given ('Does not install or launch anything'), which implies a diagnostic/preflight usage, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus siblings like database_capabilities or ui_ux_check. The agent must infer that this is the first-call health check.

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