cypress_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the tool's scope—validating config file, binary, spec files, support file, and directories. 'Health check' and 'validates' strongly imply a non-mutating diagnostic, though it does not explicitly state that no files are modified or describe failure behavior.

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 three short, purposeful sentences: purpose, scope, and usage. Every sentence adds value, with the main function front-loaded and no filler words.

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-input diagnostic tool, the description provides the role, exact validation targets, and a usage directive. It omits return-value details, but given the simple invocation and highly descriptive tool name, this is a minor gap.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's scope and purpose rather than parameter details, which are nonexistent.

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 'health check' and enumerates exactly what is validated (config file, binary, spec files, support file, directories), making the tool's purpose clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_spec or get_screenshot, which focus on execution or retrieving artifacts.

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 says 'Use this to diagnose setup issues,' providing clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended context is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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