boss_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 lists what is diagnosed but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it makes network calls, what side effects may occur, or what the output/return format is.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it contains a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' sequence and trailing availability metadata that is not essential to understanding tool behavior.

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 description names the diagnostic areas but, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain what the agent will receive, what counts as success/failure, or whether any prerequisites exist. The zero-parameter signature makes invocation simple, but behavioral outcomes remain unclear.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters, earning the baseline score.

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 action verb, 诊断 (diagnose), tied to concrete resources: local runtime environment, dependencies, login state, and network connectivity. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name any diagnostic alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no routing logic such as 'use when X, otherwise use Y'. The only context is the availability metadata, which does not explain selection behavior.

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