nworks_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It effectively lists what gets examined (auth info, tokens, keys, API), but omits critical behavioral traits like whether it modifies state (likely read-only), the format/structure of diagnostic results, or side effects.

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 well-structured sentences with zero waste: the first establishes the core function (diagnose connection status), and the second specifies the inspection targets. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's scope by detailing what components are diagnosed. While it would benefit from describing the return format, the diagnostic targets listed provide sufficient context for tool selection.

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 contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per scoring rules. The description appropriately does not fabricate parameter details, focusing instead on behavioral description.

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 tool diagnoses NAVER WORKS connection status (specific verb + resource) and enumerates specific checks (authentication, tokens, Private Key, API). It clearly distinguishes from operational siblings like nworks_board_create or nworks_mail_send by positioning itself as a diagnostic utility.

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?

While the diagnostic purpose implies usage during connectivity troubleshooting, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool versus operational alternatives, and does not mention prerequisites or conditions (e.g., 'Use when authentication errors occur').

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