boss_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The enumerated check areas (environment, dependencies, login state, connectivity) give real insight into what the tool inspects, but it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, whether it hits the network, whether it is safe to run repeatedly, or what the result looks like.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, plus a compact machine-readable availability tag. The bracketed roles/platforms metadata is dense but earns its place by gating access. Slightly terse to the point of omitting any output or safety statement.

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 diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum characterize the result an agent will get back, since the return value is the entire product of a diagnostic. It lists what is checked but says nothing about result shape, severity levels, or remediation hints, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies 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 gives a specific verb (诊断/diagnose) and enumerates the concrete resources checked: local runtime environment, dependencies, login state, and network connectivity. This is far more informative than the bare name 'boss_doctor'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the adjacent sibling boss_status, which an agent could reasonably confuse with it.

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?

Usage is only implied: a diagnostic tool is for troubleshooting when something is broken, and the bracketed availability clause tells the agent which roles and platforms it applies to. There is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g. before a first run, or after a failed login) nor any exclusion pointing to boss_status or boss_config as the alternative.

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