doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope of the checks (the specific components probed), which is useful, but says nothing about whether it is strictly read-only, whether failures abort or are merely reported, or how long it takes — leaving safety and failure semantics to inference.

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 front-loaded clause lists exactly the checks performed with zero filler. Every token earns its place, and the enumeration format matches the diagnostic nature of the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explaining, and the description fully enumerates what is probed, which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. The only gap is the missing guidance on when in a workflow to invoke it.

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 reflects that no input is required.

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 verb 'Kiểm' (check) plus an explicit enumeration of what is inspected — ffmpeg, yt-dlp, the STT engine, the VieNeu server, and the run directory — makes the tool's function unambiguous. No sibling in the list (transcribe, tts_render, list_runs, etc.) overlaps with a preflight diagnostics tool, so it is distinguishable by resource and intent.

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 never states when to run this check, whether it is a prerequisite before transcribe/tts_render, or what to do if a check fails. The 'doctor' naming convention implies a preflight role, but that is convention, not stated guidance, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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