Repo Doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists diagnostic areas but does not mention potential side effects, permissions required, whether it is destructive, or the format of the output, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 that front-loads the purpose, but it could be better structured by listing diagnostic areas or including parameter context.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and behavior. It only lists diagnostic categories without details on output format, making it incomplete for an AI agent to anticipate the tool's response.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain the two parameters (project_path, response_mode), failing to add any meaning beyond the schema's type and enum definitions.

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 clearly states the tool runs local diagnostics for specific areas (runtime, native modules, config, WSL interop, index health) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing it does not call embedding APIs.

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 indicates when to use this tool (local diagnostics without embedding APIs) by contrasting with alternatives like gemini_embedding_probe, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other sibling tools like repo_index_status.

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