doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious context: the result is prescriptive ('says how to fix it'), telling the agent the output is actionable remediation rather than raw state.

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?

Two sentences, extremely tight, with the nature of the check front-loaded and the usage trigger immediately after. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 parameterless, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what it probes and the shape of the answer (remediation advice). Enough to invoke correctly; only a note on expected failure output or how it relates to 'status' is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on nonexistent arguments.

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 concrete diagnostic verb (health check) with three enumerated checks: reachability of Nicotine+, existence of the music dir, and configuration state. It is specific enough to distinguish from the other wiki/queue tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly-scoped sibling 'status'.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'Call this first when something fails', which tells the agent when to select it. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., versus 'status'), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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