desktop_doctor

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

readOnlyHint already marks the tool as safe, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it verifies actual access, reports driver version and content identities, and discloses a limitation about the server-bundled skill not matching the agent's loaded skill. No contradiction with 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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the tool's core purpose, and the second adds necessary output and limitation details. Every sentence earns its place.

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, read-only diagnostic tool, the description covers what is checked, what is reported, and a key limitation. It does not specify the exact return structure, but the high-level reporting details are enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is complete, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description clarifies what the tool inspects and reports, which is sufficient for a parameterless call.

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 names a specific diagnostic action ('Check actual display access, desktop session, dependencies and accessibility availability') with a concrete resource scope. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like desktop_status or desktop_report.

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 intended use as a diagnostic health-check tool is implied by the listed checks, but the description does not state when to prefer it over alternative desktop tools or provide exclusion conditions. The caveat about not identifying the loaded skill gives some usage-relevant context, but no explicit routing.

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