doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It names the areas checked but does not disclose whether the tool makes network requests, modifies state, is read-only, or how it reports failures. A vague 'diagnose' leaves important behavioral traits unspecified.

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 brief and front-loaded with the verb, but it is more under-specified than intentionally concise. The semicolon-separated list covers many topics without prioritizing or explaining them, so the brevity saves space at the cost of clarity.

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-value details are not required, but the description still lacks essential context: what diagnostics are performed, side effects, and the meaning of the check_github parameter. For a tool with one optional parameter, the description is incomplete for confident invocation.

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 sole parameter check_github is completely ignored by the description, and the schema provides only its type and default with no description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain this parameter but did not.

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 the verb '诊断' (diagnose) and lists specific systems (MCP, dual database, FTS, GitHub HTTPS, local objects, hash state), so it conveys a diagnostic purpose. However, it is vague about what diagnosing actually entails and does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling skill-related tools beyond the broad domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions for calling it, and no mention of prerequisites or expected context. The sibling names suggest a different domain, so an agent could infer it is a diagnostic tool, but the description itself provides no direct routing information.

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