nworks_doctor

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds details about what is checked (authentication info, token, private key, API connection) which provides useful context beyond annotations. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, this is good disclosure. No contradictions. Score 4 because it adds meaningful context about the checks performed while the annotations already cover safety.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then lists the specific checks, making it easy to scan. No fluff, perfectly sized for a diagnostic tool with no parameters.

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 diagnostic tool with readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description covers the essential scope. However, it doesn't describe what the output will be (e.g., whether it returns a detailed report or just a status). Without an output schema, this is a slight gap, but given the simplicity and the annotations, the description is largely adequate. Score 4.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is effectively 100%, but the description takes on the burden of explaining what the tool does with no inputs. The description clearly states the scope of checks (auth, token, private key, API connection). Since there are no parameters, the baseline for trivial parameter semantics is 4, and the description compensates well by explaining the tool's purpose. Score 4.

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 purpose: diagnosing NAVER WORKS connection status by checking authentication info, tokens, Private Key, and API connection. It uses a specific verb ('진단합니다' - diagnose) and lists the specific resources checked. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but given the siblings are all functional operations (send, list, create), the diagnostic role is evident. Score 4 rather than 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 diagnostics when connection issues are suspected. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must be logged in first). The openWorldHint and idempotentHint annotations suggest it's safe to call anytime, but the description doesn't provide explicit guidance. Score 3 for implied usage without explicit alternatives.

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