jambavan_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool checks but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any side effects, required permissions, or output format. It only mentions the optional parameter but not the return structure beyond the schema.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the specific checks and then providing usage guidance. No unnecessary words; every sentence provides value.

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 lists what the tool checks but does not explain the output format, return values, or error conditions. Since there is no output schema, this is a gap. The optional parameter 'issue_report' is mentioned in schema but not in description, leaving ambiguity about output.

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 schema has full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'issue_report', with a clear description. The description adds no additional parameter information, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it performs a 'one-shot environment health check' and lists specific items checked (root detection, parser backends, gates, token budget, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jambavan_index, jambavan_context, etc., which have more specific scopes.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Call this first when something feels off (e.g. context results look like the wrong project).' This gives clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, though the purpose implies it's a diagnostic first step.

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