asset_doctor

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

Beyond the `openWorldHint` annotation, the description discloses that the tool is read-only by default, and details the side effects of enabling `auto_fix` (installing binaries, never sudo). It is fully transparent about the tool's 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 a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose and output list, then covers parameters. It is somewhat verbose but well-structured and every sentence adds value.

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, the description fully explains what the tool returns (a list of statuses, routes, keys, hints, etc.) and how to use its parameters. It is complete for an environment inventory tool with three optional parameters.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds significant value by explaining the purpose and context of each parameter beyond the schema, e.g., that `check_data` runs an integrity check and `auto_fix` uses specific package managers.

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 identifies the tool as a 'structured environment inventory' MCP equivalent of `p2a doctor`, and lists specific outputs (native-dependency status, routes, keys, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on asset generation or model inspection.

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 explains when to use each parameter (e.g., check_data for CI after data edits, auto_fix to install missing binaries, auto_fix_dry_run for preview). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is clear.

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