uvcs_doctor

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of checks (CM, workspace, MCP configuration) but does not explain what the diagnostic reports, whether it suggests fixes, or what a failed check 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The checked areas are listed directly.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It does not say what the "check" produces, how failures are surfaced, or how it differs from sibling status tools.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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?

Uses a clear verb ("Check") and names the resources being checked (CM, workspace, and UVCS MCP configuration). It is understandable, but it does not differentiate this diagnostic tool from sibling status/check tools such as uvcs_setup_status or uvcs_workspace_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?

The description does not say when this tool should be used instead of the many workspace/status/policy/check siblings. A user must infer that "doctor" means diagnostics or preflight validation.

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