doctor

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a non-mutating check, so the description's main additional value is naming the three subsystems probed. It does not say whether the tool is fast or slow, whether it invokes the browser, or what happens when a component is missing — and with no output schema, the result shape is entirely undisclosed.

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, and the enumeration of checked components is efficient. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, and 'the voice setup' is vague compared to the concrete 'ffmpeg' and 'a browser'.

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 no output schema and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description carries the burden of explaining what a caller gets back, and it does not — an agent cannot tell whether results are per-component booleans, log text, or error codes. For a simple diagnostic tool the description is minimally viable but leaves the return contract and failure behavior 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with the description's framing of a parameterless environment probe.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates exactly what is being probed: ffmpeg, a browser, and the voice setup. It is distinguishable from render/render_status/check_video as an environment diagnostic rather than a media operation, though the phrase 'can render' is slightly ambiguous about whether it verifies capability or performs a test render.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is a pre-flight check to run before rendering. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of ordering relative to setup tools like add_voice or add_media, and no disambiguation from check_video or render_status.

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