doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose what is inspected and that it returns remediation advice, implying a non-mutating read. It does not state side effects, whether any environment state is touched, or runtime cost, so the behavioral picture is only partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the inspected targets and the promised output are packed into one clause without redundancy.

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 zero-argument diagnostic with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what is checked and the nature of the result (fix recommendations), which is adequate. It could go further by clarifying the unexplained product terms or flagging that running it is safe/cheap.

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 the baseline is 4. There are no argument semantics for the description to add, and none are missing.

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?

States a specific verb (Check) and enumerates the resources inspected (Python, browser, decision models, fallback) plus the outcome (say what to fix), which clearly separates it from the browser-control siblings. However, domain jargon like "decision models" and "fallback" is left unexplained, so the exact scope isn't fully self-evident.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "say what to fix" signals a troubleshooting/diagnostic invocation. There is no explicit when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling "status" tool that might otherwise be confused with it.

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