doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the specific installation aspects being inspected (versions, config path, models folder, service reachability, slicer availability), which implies a read-only diagnostic. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no changes, requires no auth, or has any other side effects.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Report the installation') and then lists the relevant details. Every phrase contributes to the diagnostic scope with no wasted text.

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 the description does not need to explain return values. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description sufficiently identifies the categories of information reported. The only gap is the lack of explicit when-to-use guidance against sibling diagnostic 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 no parameter-level semantics to explain. Baseline 4 is appropriate because the schema is empty and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 uses a clear verb ('Report') and enumerates the installation details it covers, so the agent knows this is a diagnostic status tool rather than a model or print operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like check_print or list_capabilities, preventing a 5.

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 explains what the tool reports but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as check_print or list_capabilities. The diagnostic purpose is implied by the content, but the agent must infer the invocation context.

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