timps_dotfile_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently lists concrete checks the tool performs (slow evals, duplicate PATH entries, syntax errors), making it clear this is a diagnostic scanner. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or may modify files, leaving a slight gap.

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 two well-structured sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide specific examples. There is no fluff or repetition—every word earns its place.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of what it does and what it checks. It is self-contained and likely sufficient to decide when to use it, though a note about whether it only detects (vs. fixes) and about the output format would make it a 5.

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 input schema adds no detail and the description must provide the meaningful context. The baseline for zero params is 4; the description adds enrichment by naming the exact file types and scan domains, which is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') with a well-scoped resource ('errors and performance issues in shell config files') and explicitly lists the affected file types and example findings. This clearly distinguishes it from a generic health-check tool and from the many broader sibling tools.

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 makes the tool's context clear—when you need to inspect shell config files for specific issues—but does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it. Given the many overlapping sibling tools (e.g., timps_environment_doctor, timps_full_checkup), more explicit guidance would improve this score.

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