doctor

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'non-mutating' echoes that. It adds a small piece of context with 'local', indicating scope. No contradictions exist. However, it does not disclose what happens if the check fails, what outputs are produced, or any side effects beyond non-mutation, so it adds limited value beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though extremely brief. The structure is clean and readable, but the brevity borders on under-specification rather than intentional conciseness.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description must carry more weight, but it does not. It fails to explain what 'health checks' entail, what 'local' means in practice, what the return format is, or how 'root' affects behavior. The tool is significantly under-documented for even a basic call.

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 schema has one optional parameter 'root' with no description at all. The tool description makes zero mention of 'root', leaving its purpose and format completely undocumented. With 0% schema description coverage, the inability to compensate in the description is a critical gap. An agent cannot know what to pass for 'root'.

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 clear verb ('Run') and a specific resource ('local health checks'), making the tool's core purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'status' or 'watcher_status', which could also perform health checks. The phrase 'local' provides some distinction but not explicit sibling differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply says 'Run non-mutating local health checks,' which implies a safe diagnostic context but does not state under what conditions this tool should be chosen over 'status' or 'analyze'. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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