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 explicitly states that the operation is a non-destructive check, calls it 'cheap and safe', and describes the failure contract involving ok:false with actionable remediation. This is strong transparency beyond what structured data provides.

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 concise and front-loaded, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: what is checked, when to call it, safety, and failure handling. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless preflight check with an output schema, the description provides a complete practical contract: prerequisites checked, invocation order, safety profile, and failure behavior. Nothing essential for an agent to select or invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavioral contract rather than inputs, matching the baseline expected 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking whether the machine can run terrarium. It enumerates the specific checks performed (VirtualBox, state directory, SSH client), making it easy to distinguish from sibling env_* tools that manipulate or inspect environments.

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 description gives explicit guidance on when to call this tool ('once before anything else'), notes it is safe to call at any time, and explains how to handle a failure (report the failing check and its fix rather than working around it). This fully covers usage context and expected behavior.

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