system_doctor

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Inspect" suggests read-only, but the mention of "stale locks" leaves ambiguous whether the tool merely reports them or clears them, and nothing states permission requirements, side effects, or what the output looks like. For a zero-annotation diagnostic, that is a substantial gap.

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 no filler; the four targets are listed compactly and the scope is established immediately. Nothing would be gained by restructuring it.

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 parameters there is little an agent can get wrong mechanically, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should sketch what the report contains and whether any findings require follow-up action. As written it names the checks but not the results or consequences, leaving the agent to run it blind.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The enumerated inspection targets add useful framing even though there are no arguments to explain.

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 ("Inspect") plus four concrete inspection targets — host bundles, sandbox root permissions, stale locks, isolation state — so it reads clearly as a host-level diagnostic rather than a profile mutation. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is distinct from, but the host-scoped subject matter inherently separates it from the profile_* family.

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, what triggers it, or what to run instead — the closest guidance is the implied "if you suspect lock or permission problems." An agent must infer the trigger condition entirely from the resource list, and the boundary with profile_inspect (which also inspects) is never addressed.

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