doctor

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

The annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that health mode checks Python >= 3.11 and marks checklist 1.1, that .venv is handled elsewhere, and what the recommended follow-up calls are. It does not describe the return shape, but an output schema exists.

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 front-loaded with the health/doctor purpose and detail modes, then follows with operational guidance. It is reasonably sized and avoids unnecessary repetition, though the internal-tool references and next-step instructions make it slightly denser than a purely purpose-focused definition would be.

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 the annotations, output schema, and single optional parameter, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool and understand its main checks. It covers the health mode, the folded env/compat/cache checks, and recommended follow-up actions. Its main gap is not clearly differentiating doctor from readiness_check or diagnose_error in the sibling toolset.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the semantic load for the single detail parameter. It lists the accepted values health, env, compat, cache, and all, and explains that env/compat/cache fold validate_env, compat_check, and semantic_cache_status. It does not fully explain the all mode or each mode's exact output, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare string schema.

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 identifies this as a health/doctor diagnostic tool and names the detail modes: health, env, compat, cache, and all. It specifies that the health mode checks Python 3.11+ and marks checklist 1.1, and clarifies that .venv validation belongs to verify_local_setup and website_green, which helps distinguish it from a sibling. The only weakness is that the core purpose is stated somewhat indirectly through mode descriptions rather than a single direct verb+resource sentence.

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 gives post-doctor guidance about calling set_prereq when a Zeus URL or sample name is already known, followed by start_project or next_step. It also warns against grepping the Zeus engine tree. However, it does not explicitly state when to use doctor versus readiness_check, diagnose_error, or website_green, nor when to choose each detail mode.

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