doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a meaningful side effect: warming the XCTest runner build cache in the background when missing on iOS simulators, and describes the output as 'compact evidence' for various areas. It does not mention potential state changes or permissions, but for a diagnostic tool this is reasonably 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?

The description is three sentences, tightly packed with relevant information. It front-loads the purpose, then the output, then a crucial usage note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool is complex (25 optional parameters, output schema exists), but the description covers the core purpose, output nature, and an important side effect. It does not explain all parameter roles, but the schema already does. The description is complete enough for a high-level understanding, with only minor gaps in usage guidelines.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no specific parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. It references concepts like 'local inventory' and 'server reachability' but does not connect them to particular parameters, so it only meets the baseline.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Diagnose device, app, development-server, and React Native or Expo readiness issues.' It names specific resources and scopes, which distinguishes it from sibling diagnostic tools like 'devices' or 'settings'. The action verb 'Diagnose' is specific and non-tautological.

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 clear usage context, especially the recommendation to 'run it before the first Apple snapshot or interaction of a session' on iOS simulators. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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