research_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description's 'does not modify configuration' largely restates readOnlyHint, while 'does not check or install native decompilation engines' adds a useful scope boundary; still, no output format, permissions, or rate-limit context is supplied, so the extra disclosure is thin.

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 three clauses, each adding specific scope: inspected items and two non-goals. No filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does list the inspected categories (version, data directory, analyzer info), which is enough for a diagnostic tool. It stops short of describing output format or interpretation, but the core scope is covered.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately says nothing about parameters and the empty schema is self-explanatory.

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 names a specific verb (检查/check) and concrete resources it inspects: tool version, data directory, and built-in analyzer information. This is not a tautology and is distinct from sibling mutation tools like research_update, though no sibling alternative is named.

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 supplies explicit exclusions—does not modify configuration, does not check or install native decompilation engines—which help an agent avoid mis-invoking it for setup mutations or engine installation. However, it does not state an explicit 'use when' trigger or name alternative tools for those excluded tasks.

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