codemap_doctor

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

With no annotations, the phrase 'Check whether' credibly signals a non-mutating diagnostic and the colon list reveals exactly what environment conditions are inspected. It does not spell out the result format or whether the check can have side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentence states the purpose before a colon-delimited list of dependencies. There is no filler or duplication of the schema; every phrase 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?

For a low-complexity diagnostic with 100% schema coverage, the description gives an agent enough to select and call it correctly. The main gap is the absence of an output schema or a stated return shape (e.g., boolean vs. detailed report), but the core invocation context is complete.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds context by confirming that 'project' is the operator directory and architecture is one of the checked conditions, but it does not add new syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action ('Check whether this machine can build an AscendC operator CodeMap') and a concrete resource, with an explicit list of checked prerequisites (CANN headers, libclang, operator directory, architecture). This clearly distinguishes a preflight diagnostic from the sibling index/update/query 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 use case is implied: call this when you need to know whether the machine is ready to build a CodeMap before running a build or index operation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

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