stone_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior entirely. It usefully discloses that the check compiles a dummy solution, implying it is more than a passive read and may take time or touch the filesystem. It does not cover whether anything is persisted, how long it takes, or what a pass or fail result means.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, then the concrete checks. There is no filler, and the license-validation detail is attached to the check that proves it.

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?

This is a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should say more about what the result consists of and how to act on a failure. It names the checks but leaves the output shape and failure semantics unexplained.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no input is required, because the environment is probed directly.

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 verb ('Check') and resource ('STone environment') and enumerates the sub-checks: SToneCLI, IronPython API, and dummy-solution compilation for license validity. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which create, build, search, or generate; none of them diagnose the 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?

The diagnostic nature is implied by the name and the checklist enumeration, so an agent can infer it is a pre-flight or troubleshooting check. But there is no explicit statement of when to run it (before first build, after connection failures) or when another sibling is the better call.

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