doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check' suggests a read-only diagnostic, but the description does not state whether it has side effects, whether it requires a release to be staged, what happens on failure, or how comprehensive its checks are.

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 with no filler. Key information—'check whether release can run'—is front-loaded, and the scoped areas are listed compactly. It is appropriately terse, though cryptically so.

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 presence of several similar operational siblings, the description should say how this diagnostic differs and what the agent needs to provide (like repo_path). Because the description lacks usage context and side-effect transparency, it feels incomplete for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention repo_path at all. With a single optional parameter, the description needed to explain what the path refers to and how it affects the check, but it provides no parameter meaning beyond the bare schema title.

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 and resource: 'Check whether a release can run', and indicates scope ('engine, process, decision, config'). This distinguishes it from operational siblings like start_release or cancel_run, though the domain-specific list is somewhat ambiguous without additional context.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as start_release or get_run. The phrase 'whether a release can run' implies a pre-flight diagnostic, but this is left to inference rather than stated.

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