doctor

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations (which are absent). It explains what the tool examines (Android SDK, adb, emulator, JDK, Gradle) and mentions it is a diagnostic tool that checks availability and paths. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well, though it could mention potential side effects (e.g., modifying any state) which are absent.

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, information-dense sentence with a clear front-loaded purpose followed by specifics and usage guidance. Every clause adds value without redundancy, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is comprehensive enough to use the tool effectively. It explains what the tool checks, why, and when to invoke it. The complexity is low, and the description covers all needed context without gaps.

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 has no parameters (input schema empty and no required params) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4 according to scoring rules. The description adds beyond the schema by detailing what is diagnosed, which is useful for understanding output semantics.

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 clearly states the tool diagnoses the local toolchain, listing specific components like Android SDK path, adb/emulator, AVDs, devices, accessibility bridge, and host build tools. This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are primarily for interacting with emulators or devices, not diagnosing setup.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Run this first when something isn't working, especially a Gradle tool failing with "SDK location not found".' This provides clear context and a concrete troubleshooting scenario, effectively guiding the AI agent on when this diagnostic tool is appropriate versus other alternatives.

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