doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: 'Read-only' and 'БЕЗ выхода из агента' (self-contained, no external calls). It also hints at return shapes ('P1→🔵, фейк→None'). It stops short of describing return format or what failure states to expect, leaving meaningful gaps for a diagnostic tool.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the purpose, but the mixed Russian/English with arrow-and-emoji notation ('P1→🔵, фейк→None') and a parentheses aside '(ollama?)' makes the structure cryptic rather than cleanly scannable.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-less, output-schema-less diagnostic, the description covers the essentials: what is checked and the reason to call it. It is nearly complete, with only the return semantics left partly opaque.

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 zero parameters (empty schema), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the baseline, a 4 is appropriate; the description correctly implies the tool is parameterless.

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 specific verb+resource ('Health-check машины') and enumerates the concrete checks: Python, skill installed, tier, and a self-test of the moat. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not name or distinguish itself from siblings such as ollama_status, ollama_ensure, or setup_full, which also probe readiness-tier concerns.

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 closing clause 'Зови, чтобы понять, готова ли эта машина собирать' gives an implied use case (determine whether the machine is ready to assemble). However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not conditions, so an agent must infer whether this precedes setup_full or overlaps with ollama_status.

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