l2kc_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description does carry useful behavioral disclosures: it clarifies that mock data are test fixtures rather than a live account, that it does not shell out to kaggle or colab, and that CLI detection uses shutil.which. These are meaningful for interpreting results, but it omits what checks are run and whether the tool has any side effects.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler and no repetition. The only structural weakness is that caveats about fixtures and non-execution come before any substantive statement of what the report actually contains.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the zero-parameter surface is trivial. What is still missing is the scope of the diagnostic itself — an agent cannot tell from the description what problems this tool will surface compared to the richer sibling gpu_doctor.

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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain 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?

"Local doctor report" largely restates the tool name (doctor) rather than describing what the report covers — environment? credentials? CLI availability? It adds the "local" scope but never names the checks performed, and gives no basis for distinguishing it from the sibling gpu_doctor or l2kc_auth_status.

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?

There is no statement of when to run this versus gpu_doctor, l2kc_auth_status, or l2kc_refresh_quota, nor any prerequisite or typical first-step guidance. A diagnostics tool conventionally implies troubleshooting, but nothing in the text confirms or directs that.

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