environment_doctor

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

The description discloses all behavioral traits: inspection, verification, counting, reporting, and listing problems with fix hints. It implies no side effects, which is appropriate for a diagnostic tool. No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides essential information without waste.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and context. It specifies what is inspected, what is reported, and when to use it, making it complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter info because none are needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: inspect the Turbo C toolchain, verify paths, count headers, report sessions, and list problems with fix hints. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compile_and_run or analyze_code.

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 includes clear usage guidance: 'Run this first if compiles fail.' This implies when to use it (before other tools upon compilation failure), though it lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives.

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