claude_codex_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It names what is diagnosed but does not describe what actions are taken, what data is returned, or any side effects. 'Quick local diagnosis' is too vague to inform an agent of behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise at 4 words, front-loaded with the key verb and subjects. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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, no annotations, and zero parameters, the description is too sparse. It leaves the agent unclear about what information the diagnosis provides, how to interpret results, or whether any side effects occur.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context beyond the empty schema by specifying the diagnostic areas (consent, credentials, default model), which helps an agent understand what to expect.

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 states it performs a 'quick local diagnosis' of 'consent, credentials, default model,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and resources. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like claude_codex_consent_status or claude_codex_provider_status, which may overlap.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. The phrase 'quick local diagnosis' implies a broad check, but there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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