doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the specific areas checked factually beyond what annotations express, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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, focused sentence that leads with the core purpose and immediately gives actionable usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic with rich safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: it defines the target scope and the recommended invocation condition. It does not describe the output format, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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 has zero parameters)Skip; schema coverage is 100% for an empty schemaches, so the description carries no parameter burden. The description adds value by defining the tool's scope rather than repeating parameter details, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific diagnostic verb ('Health check') with a defined resource ('whole mBlock setup') and lists the concrete components checked: server, bridge app link, projects folder, bridge file. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like project-validate or app_status, which are narrower in scope.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to run this tool: 'Run first when anything behaves oddly.' It does not list exclusions or alternative tools, but the condition is clear enough for an agent to select it as the first diagnostic step.

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