Check setup

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a non-mutating inspection. The description adds the useful scope of what is inspected, but does not say whether it merely reports or can also remediate problems, whether provider checks make network calls or require credentials, or how failures are surfaced.

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 short sentence fragment with no wasted words, and the most important items (ffmpeg, footage providers) are front-loaded. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but that costs little here.

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 covering return shape, the description leaves the agent guessing what a result looks like — per-component pass/fail, a summary string, or a thrown error. For a diagnostic tool the output is the whole point, so this is a real gap.

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; the baseline applies. The enumeration of checked areas at least confirms no targeting input is accepted.

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 the verb ('Check') and enumerates the specific resources inspected: ffmpeg, footage providers, output folders, and cache folders. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like make_short_video or search_footage, though the tool name 'doctor' alone would be opaque without the title.

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 preflight/diagnostic check to run before generating videos, but the description never states when to call it (e.g., before first use, after a failure) or that it should be preferred over attempting a render and failing.

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