vensim_doctor

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

The description conveys a read-only diagnostic behavior ('Detect' and 'report') without any annotation support, which is useful. However, it does not explain what 'native automation boundary' means, what the returned report contains, or whether the tool may initiate any side effects, so behavioral disclosure is only partial.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the primary action ('Detect local Vensim') is front-loaded. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it appropriately sized for a zero-parameter 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral context, but it leaves the key concept of the 'native automation boundary' unexplained and does not describe what the agent should expect as output. It is sufficient for basic recognition but not fully complete for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 parameters and the schema is effectively complete for an empty input object, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing missing semantically.

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 verb ('Detect') and a concrete resource ('local Vensim'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_vensim_model or validate_vensim_model by framing itself as a diagnostic/reporting tool. However, the phrase 'exact native automation boundary' is jargon-heavy and not fully self-explanatory.

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 when to use the tool — when you need to detect a local Vensim installation or learn about its automation capabilities — but offers no explicit guidelines, exclusions, or mention of alternative sibling tools. Context is inferable but not stated.

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