boss_doctor

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

Description indicates checks on four areas (environment, dependencies, login, network), which is useful. It mentions role/platform availability constraints. However, without annotations, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or modifies anything. The availability info adds partial transparency.

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?

Single sentence with a bracketed availability note. It is concise and front-loaded. Minor repetition of '可用性:', but overall efficient.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose. However, it lacks details on output format or how results are presented. For a diagnostic tool, this is a notable 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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. No parameter information needed; the description focuses on the tool's function.

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 the verb 'diagnose' (诊断) and specifies resources: local runtime, dependencies, login status, network connectivity. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like boss_status which likely checks tool-level health, not local environment.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for environment diagnostics, but does not mention when not to use or provide alternative tool names.

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