doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool runs a command and returns a report, which is a read-only operation. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, execution time, or what happens if the command fails. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It states the command and the output in minimal words with no waste.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent what command runs and what it returns. It could mention whether this is safe/read-only, but the absence of parameters and the presence of an output schema reduce the need for more.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 the action ('Run `hermes doctor`') and the resource ('its health report'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hermes_status and hermes_ask. It is specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from hermes_status.

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 implies usage: run this when you need a health report from hermes. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over hermes_status or other sibling tools, but the context of 'health report' provides some guidance.

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