rastermoves_doctor

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

The annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds meaningful context by stating that it returns a retained background job and that callers should poll danceflow_job_status. It also explains that base effects are none while conditional inference/download effects are described in danceflow_component, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler. The sentences are terse and somewhat fragmented, but every sentence contributes operational information.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description covers the main behavior an agent needs: what is inspected, that a retained job is returned, and how to poll it. It is slightly incomplete on sibling selection and concrete permission handling, but broadly adequate for this diagnostic tool.

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 schema has only two top-level parameters and 50% description coverage; the permissions object is already documented in the schema. The description adds conceptual help about effect flags and conditional effects, but it does not explain the empty arguments object or give concrete permission-usage guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: inspecting installed runtime versions and available devices. It is clear enough to distinguish a diagnostic tool from model/download/render siblings, though it does not explicitly name how it differs from nearby tools such as rastermoves_info.

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?

It gives useful follow-up guidance: the call returns a retained background job and should be polled via danceflow_job_status. However, it does not say when to choose rastermoves_doctor instead of sibling diagnostics like rastermoves_info, stemlab_doctor, or pixelcue_health.

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