doctor

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behaviors. It mentions 'fixes' but does not clarify if the tool actually applies fixes or only suggests them, which could be destructive. No mention of permissions, side effects, or output format.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope, though the phrase 'with fixes' could be clarified.

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?

Given the complexity of running multiple checks and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details about return format, whether modifications are applied, and prerequisites like a valid project directory.

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?

Both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no further detail beyond summarizing the tool's purpose, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 it runs all environment checks (Node version, Docker, git config, env files, ports) and returns a report with fixes, distinguishing it from sibling tools that only check individual aspects.

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 a comprehensive check but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus the individual sibling tools, such as check_ports or check_node_version.

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