origin_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'diagnose' which implies read-only, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, whether authentication is needed, what happens on failure, or any side effects. This lack of transparency is a 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary words. However, it might be too brief given the complexity of the tool.

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?

With 6 optional parameters and no annotations or parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient to fully understand the tool's behavior. The presence of an output schema helps a little, but the description does not cover what the tool returns or how parameters affect diagnosis. More context is needed.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool's description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (host, port, token, timeout, status_path, ping_origin). The agent cannot infer what each parameter means or how to use them.

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 uses the specific verb 'diagnose' and names the resource 'Origin bridge' along with aspects (configuration, status file, connectivity). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'origin_ping' (which is for general connectivity) and 'origin_diagnose_worksheet' (which targets worksheets).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling list includes many tools, and the description does not help an agent decide when to choose 'origin_doctor' over others.

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