doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description redundantly confirms 'changes nothing' but adds real value by describing the return payload ('ok, os, every check with its status and the exact fix for each failed one'). It stops short of runtime traits such as latency, cost, or whether browser-launching checks have side effects, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: what is checked first, then when to call it and what comes back. No filler or repetition beyond the minor restatement of read-only behavior.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it names the inspected dependencies, the call conditions, and the shape of the result including per-check fixes.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4 for a parameterless tool.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check') plus an explicit enumeration of what is inspected: Pillow, font, output folder, Playwright/browser, CDP browser, screen capture permission, window listing, OCR engines, clipboard, and mcp. No sibling tool overlaps with this diagnostic role, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

It states two concrete triggering conditions: 'Use it first when a tool fails with a missing dependency or permission' and 'before a long task on a new machine.' This is explicit when-to-use guidance rather than implied context.

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