jianying_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Check', which implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, describe side effects, return value, or required permissions. Critical gaps for a diagnostic tool.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Check', and contains zero filler. Every word contributes to listing the checked items, though those items could be clearer.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns or what 'checking' produces (e.g., a report, success/failure). The phrase 'create-new safety boundary' is obscure and not explained. For a diagnostic tool, the absence of result/return information is a major gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It mentions 'draft-root' as one of the check items, linking it to the drafts_root parameter, but does not explain expected values, the meaning of null/default, or how the parameter affects the check. The optional nature is left unexplained.

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 (JianYing Pro, draft-root, FFmpeg, create-new safety boundary), which separates it from the sibling build/validate/publish tools by implying a diagnostic role. However, it does not specify what kind of checks are performed (e.g., version, availability, config), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The name 'doctor' hints at troubleshooting, but the description provides no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. No mention of when to prefer this over validate or build.

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