tc_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: what the check reports, that output begins with a one-line summary, and that verbose=true expands the loaded configuration. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and scope, then states the usage directive, then describes output behavior. The enumerated checks are dense but each item is relevant to a diagnostic tool; there is little wasted text, though the long parenthetical makes it slightly heavy.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with an output schema, an agent needs to know what is checked, why to run it first, and how verbosity affects output. The description supplies all of that, and the output schema handles the return structure.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does this for the single parameter by explaining that verbose=true adds the full loaded configuration, whereas the default returns only the one-line summary.

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 diagnostic resource, 'Environment check', and enumerates the exact environment aspects it inspects: platform, pyads/router, AMS NetId, XAE ProgIDs, running shells, project root, safety mode, and elicitation capability. Combined with 'Run this first', an agent can distinguish this aggregate readiness check from all the narrower operation-specific siblings.

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 clear context with 'Run this first', telling the agent when to invoke it relative to other tools. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative diagnostics, but for a first-run environment check that omission is minor.

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