CLI Doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'local CLI diagnostic' scope but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as whether it executes CLI commands, reads config files, or performs any network checks beyond what the parameters imply.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple diagnostic tool, though it could be slightly richer without becoming verbose.

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 zero required parameters, 100% parameter schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the structured data covers most operational details. The main missing context is when to prefer this over related status/configuration tools, which is not addressed in the description.

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%, and every parameter already has a detailed description explaining defaults and precedence. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'local Cloudeval CLI diagnostic checks,' making the core purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from server-side or API status tools by emphasizing 'local CLI,' though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.

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 word 'local' implies the tool is for diagnosing the local CLI environment rather than server status, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as status, auth_status, or config_show. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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