doctor_check_env

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (comparing and flagging differences) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. It also does not describe the return format or error handling. The description is not contradictory, but it is minimal in disclosing potential behavioral details.

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, well-structured sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and immediately conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary qualifiers. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It states what the tool does and what it flags. However, it does not explain the exact format of the output (e.g., a list, structure), which might be useful for an agent expecting a specific return type. This is a minor gap, not a critical omission.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (projectPath) with a clear description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but given full coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional semantic context is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Compares') and resource ('.env against .env.example') and clearly indicates the action ('flags missing or extra environment keys'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like doctor_port_inspect and doctor_diagnose_project by focusing on environment file consistency.

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 description implies usage context (checking environment configuration) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no exclusions or conditions beyond the action itself. Since the purpose is distinct enough from siblings, the omission is not severely penalized, but it lacks explicit routing guidance.

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