doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the scope of inspection, which is real content, but never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, what happens on failure, or whether it has side effects. For a tool an agent might invoke casually, the safety profile is left unstated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and purpose, followed by a compact enumeration of checks. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description adequately scopes what the tool inspects. The only shortfall is the unaddressed safety/read-only nature of the operation, which matters more here because no annotations cover it.

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 single 'runtime' parameter has 100% schema description coverage, and the rule sets the baseline at 3 when the schema already documents parameters. The description adds nothing about runtime selection or what omitting it means, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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 ('Run project preflight checks') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: configuration diagnostics, dependency cycles, service directories, env files, shells, and declared ports. An agent immediately knows this is a composite diagnostic sweep rather than a single-resource read. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like 'health' or 'status', so it does not earn a 5.

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 word 'preflight' implies the usage window (before starting/up), which is genuinely useful implied guidance, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is given. With siblings 'health', 'status', and 'ports' in the same namespace, the description leaves the routing decision to inference.

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