doctor_diagnose_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavior disclosure. It states the core action (scanning, detecting) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if it requires network access, has prerequisites, or what the output format is. These gaps leave uncertainty for agents.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and delivers all key information without waste. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple diagnostic tool with one well-documented parameter, the description covers the essential purpose and actions. It lacks mention of output structure or side effects, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, the definition is reasonably complete for agent decision-making.

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%, so the single parameter (projectPath) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline, but it does not compensate with any additional parameter-related insights.

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 uses a specific verb ('scans') and resource ('project structure'), and lists concrete detections (language/framework, missing dependencies, setup issues). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like doctor_port_inspect and doctor_check_env that target different diagnostic scopes.

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 for project-level diagnostics but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. The intended context is inferable from the phrasing, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools or guidance on suitability.

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