doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it checks Java and installed tool integrity, but it does not explain what a failed check looks like or how results are reported.

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 efficient phrase with the action and scope front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary wording, though it is terse enough that some useful diagnostic context is absent.

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 no-parameter diagnostic tool, the description identifies what is checked and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the check returns or how an agent should interpret success versus failure.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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, "Check," and specific resources: local Java and installed tool integrity. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as capabilities or install_tools.

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?

Usage is implied as a diagnostic or health-check step, likely before or after installing tools, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives to consider.

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