doctor

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful context beyond that: the exact readiness fields returned and the recommended pre-`up` timing. It does not describe failure behavior or the full return payload, so it falls short of a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by read-only status, return keys, sequencing, and alternatives. Every sentence contributes routing or behavioral information without padding.

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?

For a read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers the main question, optional project scope, key return fields, timing relative to `up`, and sibling alternatives. The remaining gap is that it only names two return fields and does not describe failure modes or the full diagnostic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds some meaning for `projectPath` by saying it includes project-specific checks, but it does not mention `noPing`, so the schema remains the primary source of parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking whether the machine can run the Flisk stack, naming Docker, Tilt, and ports as the checked concerns. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly naming status and config_verify for adjacent questions.

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 gives explicit sequencing guidance: run before `up`. It also routes the agent away from this tool when the question is about running-stack state (`status`) or generated-file consistency (`config_verify`).

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