Doctor (health check)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond them by scoping the breadth of inspection and disclosing the return shape ('issues list and ok flag'), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the operation and the return values are appended efficiently. The clause list is long but each item describes a distinct check, so little is wasted.

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 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, this description covers what an agent needs: what it validates and what it returns. Only the absence of explicit routing advice against sibling checkers keeps it short of complete.

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 the baseline is 4; there are no arguments whose semantics could be ambiguous or under-documented.

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?

States a specific operation ('Full health check') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: script/bridge version, SaveData validity, moveset index range, counts, duplicates, builtin hashes, folders. This clearly separates it from narrower siblings like reanim_check_movesets and reanim_check_dances, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'Doctor' framing and 'Full health check' make it obvious this is the run-when-something-seems-wrong tool, distinct from targeted check_* siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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