jambavan_doctor

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a health check (non-destructive) and lists what it inspects, implying a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state side effects or rate limits, but the nature of a health check makes them unlikely, and the description is sufficiently 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?

Two sentences: the first lists diagnostic items, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description fully covers what the tool checks and when to use it. While it doesn't specify the return format or that it produces a JSON report, the intent is clear for a simple health check tool. Slightly more detail on output could elevate it, but it is complete enough for effective use.

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% (the only parameter 'issue_report' is fully described in the schema). The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 clearly specifies the tool as a 'one-shot environment health check' and lists concrete aspects it checks (root detection, parser backends, gates, etc.), making its purpose distinct from siblings like jambavan_diagnostics.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Call this first when something feels off' with a concrete example ('context results look like the wrong project'), providing clear context for when to use. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name specific alternatives.

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