Opentoonz Doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on the one behavior that matters: it discloses that smoke=true launches OpenToonz, costs a few seconds, and is off by default. It stops short of broader behavioral context (e.g., whether diagnostics write files or require a valid install).

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 short paragraphs: the purpose is front-loaded, and the second explains the single parameter's tradeoff without repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-optional-param diagnostic with an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete — return values need not be explained and the smoke semantics are covered. The one gap is the missing distinction from the similar opentoonz_health tool.

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 0% for the single boolean, but the description more than compensates: it defines what smoke=true actually does, that it proves runtime execution rather than mere binary existence, its cost, and its default. That is real meaning beyond `{"type": "boolean"}`.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — a 'full diagnostic' yielding 'resolved paths, versions, and prepared state' — so it's clearly distinct from the rendering/drawing/workspace siblings. However, it never differentiates itself from the very similar opentoonz_health sibling, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to run this tool versus opentoonz_health or opentoonz_scene_info. The only conditional guidance concerns the smoke flag's runtime cost, not tool selection, so usage remains inferred.

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