oss_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool inspects installation state and emits guidance, implying a read-only diagnostic, but does not state side effects, whether it installs anything, or what the response looks like.

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?

Two short units of text with the main purpose front-loaded and the parameter note following. No filler, though the Args block partially repeats what the first line already conveys about language scoping.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is checked and how to scope it, but leaves the shape of the result (what 'installation guidance' output looks like) unspecified.

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 0% (the schema only declares `languages` as a nullable string array with no description), so the description is the sole source. It supplies a concrete example (["rust", "python"]) and the default semantics (all supported languages when omitted), which is meaningfully more than the schema provides.

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 first sentence names the resource (engine/LSP installations) and the operation (check presence and version, plus installation guidance), so the agent knows this is a diagnostic tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like oss_capabilities, which could plausibly overlap, keeping it below a 5.

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 implies usage (run it to verify engine setup and get install instructions) and explains the scoping behavior of the optional languages arg. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing against the many sibling tools.

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