codex_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'checks' the listed items, implying read-only diagnostics, but it does not disclose whether the check has side effects, what the output format is, or whether the tool can repair issues. The listed components add some context, but the safety and result behavior remain unclear.

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?

A single compact sentence leads with the verb and enumerates all six check targets with no filler or repeated information. This is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool.

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 zero-parameter complexity, the description adequately lists what is checked. However, since there is no output schema, a note on what the agent receives after the check (e.g., a report, list of issues, or pass/fail status) would make it fully self-contained. The description is usable but leaves the result behavior to inference.

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 defines zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The list of checked items effectively serves as the entire parameter surface, making additional parameter semantics unnecessary.

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?

Description uses an explicit verb '检查' (check) and lists the exact resources it inspects: bridge mode, Codex executable, initialization status, sandbox, directory whitelist, and task index configuration. This makes the tool's scope clear and distinguishes it from siblings like codex_status, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with that tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to call codex_doctor versus codex_status or other siblings. The listed check areas imply a diagnostic context, but the description never states use cases, prerequisites, or when this tool is not appropriate.

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