doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Check' hints at read-only, but the description never confirms it performs no mutations, whether it remediates problems, what permissions it needs, or how results are surfaced.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to gaps captured in other dimensions rather than being a structural flaw.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves too much open: what the check returns, whether failure output identifies which component broke, and how project_dir affects the scope.

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 single parameter 'project_dir' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. The agent must guess whether the check applies to the project directory, the FFmpeg binary location, or something else.

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 verb 'Check' plus an explicit enumeration of resources (ffmpeg, speech engine, model cache, disk, memory) makes clear this is an environment/dependency diagnostic. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like 'status' or 'verify', which could plausibly overlap.

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?

There is no statement of when to run this versus alternatives such as 'status' or 'verify'. The purpose implies troubleshooting, but nothing tells the agent the trigger condition or whether it belongs before a render or after a failure.

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