easyeda_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it explicitly states the tool will not launch the client or open a project, telling the agent the probe is non-intrusive to the running app — information the hints alone do not convey.

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 compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the non-intrusiveness constraint appended; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 no-argument diagnostic whose results are fully described by the existing output schema, the description covers what the tool inspects and what it avoids. It stops short of saying how to act on a failure result, but that is a minor gap given the rich structured output.

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 of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify or omit.

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?

Names a specific verb (检查/check) plus concrete resources (官方原生 MCP 的版本、桥接与结果通道), so an agent immediately reads this as a diagnostics/health-check tool. No sibling (list/inspect/read/call/auto/export) overlaps that role, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 name 'doctor' and the check-list of version/bridge/channel suggest troubleshooting, but there is no statement of when to reach for this versus easyeda_list_sessions or easyeda_get_api. The clause '不启动客户端、不打开工程' does give a useful negative scope (no side effects on the app), which nudges toward 'use this to probe without disturbing anything'.

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