spine_doctor

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (report availability) without mentioning whether it is read-only, whether it has side effects, what it does if dependencies are missing, or any potential errors. The description is minimal and leaves many behavioral aspects unstated.

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 conveys the tool's function without any fluff. Every word contributes to clarity, and it is front-loaded with the action verb 'Report' immediately.

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 low complexity of a no-parameter doctor check, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify what 'availability' entails (e.g., version checks, path requirements) or what the output format is (e.g., boolean, message). Without an output schema or annotations, the description could be more explicit about the return value and any caveats.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is fully covered by the absence of properties. Per the rule, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are no parameters, there is nothing to clarify beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: it reports on the availability of the Spine CLI and Python dependencies. This is a specific verb ('report') and resource, and it effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle project operations like packing, exporting, or previewing.

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 prerequisites, such as running this before other tools, or conditions under which it should be called. The name 'doctor' implies a health check, but without explicit context, an agent may not know when to invoke it.

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