desktop_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks multiple aspects (display access, session, dependencies, accessibility), which is useful, but it doesn't disclose what happens on failure, whether it returns a report, or whether it has side effects. The description is honest but thin on behavioral detail.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Check', and every word adds meaning. It lists the four check areas compactly without redundancy.

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 0-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it tells the agent what the tool checks. However, it doesn't describe the return value or how to interpret results, which an agent would need to act on the diagnosis. Given the tool's diagnostic nature, this is a notable gap.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool checks, which is the only semantic content an agent needs. Baseline 4 for 0 params is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('display access, desktop session, dependencies and accessibility availability'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform actions (activate, click, drag) or observations (observe, inspect), though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 this is a diagnostic tool to run before other desktop operations, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. The context signals show 0 parameters and no annotations, so the description carries the burden; it gives a clear context but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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