workbuddy_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only diagnostic actionchers, which is a meaningful behavioral signal. However, it does not state what happens on success/failure, whether any system state can be changed, or what output the agent should expect, leaving important behavior implicit.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the action and lists the specific resources being checked, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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-argument diagnostic tool, invocation is trivial and the description is sufficient for initial selection. However, with no output schema, the agent is not told what kind of result to expect or how to interpret the check outcome. The phrase 'initialization' is somewhat vague, so the definition is adequate but not fully complete.

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 zero parametersched, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is no parameter meaning to add. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies here because the description and schema are consistent and no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Check', and names distinct resources: Node, CodeBuddy CLI, and ACP stdio initialization. This clearly communicates a diagnostic/health-check tool and differentiates it from the session-management siblings. It could be slightly stronger by stating the expected outcome (e.g., 'report environment readiness'), but the core purpose is understandable.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like workbuddy_status or workbuddy_session_status. There is no mention of troubleshooting contexts, prerequisites, or scenarios where this should not be used. The usage intent must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the word 'Check'.

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