audio_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 does disclose a key trait: 'without changing state,' indicating a non-mutating operation. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as whether it launches external processes, requires prerequisites, or can be safely run concurrently. The single disclosed trait is useful but incomplete.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately lists the key resources checked. It is front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler or irrelevant detail. Every word adds value.

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?

The description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not explain what 'check' involves (e.g., verifying existence, version, health), what the return format is, or what happens if any component is missing. With no output schema and no parameter explanation, the description leaves significant gaps in expected behavior and result.

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 input schema has one parameter 'home' with no description, and the description never mentions it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose and optionality, but it does not. The description adds no semantic value for this parameter, leaving the agent without any guidance.

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 verb 'Check' and lists specific resources: Node, workspace, REW, host audio, JamesDSP, and configured DSP adapters. It also clarifies that the action does not change state, distinguishing it as a read-only diagnostic. This is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose and differentiate it from more targeted siblings like jamesdsp_status or audio_host_inventory.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or recommend using it over siblings like audio_host_inventory or jamesdsp_status for a comprehensive status check. An agent must infer usage from the resource list alone, with no explicit context.

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