jekyll_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait: "Read-only regarding project source files," which reassures the agent it won't mutate content. However, it says nothing about whether any cache/artifact files are written, what permission or environment prerequisites exist, or how results are surfaced.

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 with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the safety note is placed second where it reads as a qualifier rather than drowning the purpose.

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 and no annotations, the description covers what it does and one key behavioral trait. It is close to complete; a note on what the diagnostics look like or the expected environment would close the remaining gap.

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 and there is nothing for the description to document or compensate for. No parameter semantics gap exists.

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 and resource: "Run jekyll doctor to check for common configuration and environment issues." This separates it from build/validate siblings by naming the diagnostic scope (config + environment). It does not explicitly differentiate against jekyll_validate or jekyll_project_scan, which are the nearest neighbors.

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 implies usage context (troubleshooting configuration and environment problems), but gives no explicit "use this when / use X instead" guidance or prerequisites, such as needing to be run inside a Jekyll project root. An agent must infer the trigger condition from the one-line purpose statement.

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