vidlens_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope of checks and that failures are reported explicitly (哪里断了直接说), but never states that it is read-only and safe, whether it makes network calls with side effects, or how long a full probe takes. Adequate but shallow for a zero-annotation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the checklist. The telegraphic style is efficient, though the slash-separated list is slightly terse enough to read as a note rather than guidance.

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 with no output schema, listing the checked subsystems and stating that breakage is reported directly is nearly enough. Missing only whether repeated invocation is harmless and roughly what the report contains.

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, so baseline is 4. Nothing about parameters needs explaining, and the description correctly spends no words on them.

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 action (self-check / 自检) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: python, ffmpeg, yt-dlp, dependencies, whisper model, disk, network. This is clearly distinct from the video_* siblings. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from vidlens_models, which also touches the whisper model area.

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 implication that you run this when something is broken is present but only implied, and there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use or mention of vidlens_models as an alternative. An agent can reasonably infer this is the first-call diagnostic, but it is not stated.

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