doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context beyond them: it does not repair or install anything, it tolerates an uninitialized environment, and it returns named checks with success/failure and recovery guidance. That is solid added value for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope, then the alternative tool, then the behavioral caveats and return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information and none restates the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not document return fields, and it appropriately summarizes them in one clause. Coverage of behavior and alternatives is adequate for a read-only diagnostic; the only missing piece is disambiguation from the several other health/layout-inspection siblings.

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 takes no parameters (0 properties, additionalProperties false), so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by framing it as a pure inspection call.

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 opens with a specific verb and enumerates the concrete domains inspected (Python, storage, project layout, host integration health), so the agent knows exactly what it checks. It differentiates itself from host_setup explicitly, but says nothing about how it differs from closely-named siblings such as status, host_check, or inspect_project_layout, which limits it to a 4.

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?

It gives explicit usage context ('Use for diagnostic checks') and names an alternative with the condition that selects it ('use host_setup to change configuration'). It also states a useful negative condition — it works on an uninitialized environment. It stops short of routing among the other health-adjacent siblings, so not a 5.

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