carrel_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a passive report but never states that it is read-only, that it performs no installs despite mentioning 'install hints,' whether it probes the network or filesystem, or how long it may take. Those are exactly the traits an agent needs when deciding whether this diagnostic is safe and cheap to call.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the most useful content (what the report contains) is stated up front. It reads as a noun-phrase fragment rather than a complete sentence, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of truth about the return value, and it does list the report's sections. However, it leaves open what 'per-command status' and the 'capability table' actually look like and whether the report is a prerequisite check for other carrel_* tools.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, avoiding noise.

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 names the resource concretely ('Environment report') and enumerates its sections: external tools with versions or install hints, per-command status, and the capability table. An agent can infer this is a diagnostics/self-check tool, though the verb is nominal ('report') rather than an explicit action like 'check' or 'diagnose'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as carrel_inspect or carrel_meta, which sound adjacent.

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 call this tool versus alternatives — nothing like 'run before other commands' or 'use when a command fails due to a missing external tool.' With siblings named inspect and meta, the absence of any differentiation leaves the agent to guess the intended trigger.

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