doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: deep=true makes a tiny live call, uses a bit of free quota, and skips paid lanes. This goes beyond the annotation to explain side effects and cost behavior, which is essential for an agent to decide whether to use deep mode.

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 two well-structured sentences. The first front-loads the purpose with a compact list of checked items. The second efficiently explains the deep flag with its key trade-offs. No wasted words; every clause adds information.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains what the check covers and the deep behavior. It doesn't describe the return format, but the enumerated list of checked items gives a clear picture of the output content. This is fairly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already describes the 'deep' parameter as 'Live-probe each free lane's auth.', so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by specifying that deep=true 'uses a bit of free quota' and 'skips paid lanes', adding cost and scope semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Health check') and enumerates the exact resources inspected: installed CLIs, host, paid lanes, defaults, and current cost profile. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like setup, lane_stats, usage_report, usage_budget, and reset_lane_state.

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 clearly frames when to use this tool—as a health check for environment state and lane status—and provides detailed guidance on the deep=true flag, including its cost and scope. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but context is sufficient for an agent to choose this over sibling tools.

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