doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds that the check targets local installation and store readability, but says nothing about whether it reports warnings vs. errors or how partial failures are surfaced (though an output schema exists).

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes: what is checked (install) and what capability is validated (store read).

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, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only profile. What the check verifies is stated; only the expected follow-up on failure is left implicit.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; this is the baseline for a no-arg tool. The description correctly implies the probe needs no inputs.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Check') and two concrete things verified: that journal-cli is installed and that it can read the Journal store. It is clearly not an entry/data-listing tool like its siblings, though it never names or contrasts with them 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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight/troubleshooting check, but the description never states when to call it (e.g., before other tools, or after a failure) or what to do if the check fails.

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