tc_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations don't: it enumerates the environment surfaces probed (registry ProgIDs, running XAE shells, safety mode), which tells the agent this is a read-only reconnaissance step with no side effects on the target.

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?

Two compact statements, front-loaded with the purpose and ending on the imperative call to action. The enumerated check list is dense but every item earns its place by describing coverage. Slightly list-heavy but not wasteful.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and with zero parameters there are no input concerns. It states both what is checked and when to run it, leaving little an agent needs for correct invocation.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless, fire-and-forget invocation with nothing to configure.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ("Environment check") and enumerates the specific things inspected: platform, pyads/router, AMS NetId, registry ProgIDs, running XAE shells, project root, and safety mode. The enumerated scope implicitly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like ads_status or xae_status, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

"Run this first" is an explicit, actionable usage directive that tells the agent when to reach for this tool relative to the rest of the suite. It does not name a specific alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of the 5 level.

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