Verify local Android dependencies, allowed directories, and backend status without connecting to a device or starting REA.
检查本机 Android 依赖、允许目录和后端状态；不连接设备或启动 REA。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "doctor"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it inspects only local state and explicitly will not touch devices or launch REA, reinforcing the local-only, side-effect-free profile. It stops short of saying what the report looks like, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
A single compact sentence with the inspected resources front-loaded and the exclusion clause second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.
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 parameterless, annotation-covered, no-output-schema diagnostic, the description covers what is checked and what is out of scope. It could say a bit more about what a result contains (e.g., pass/fail per dependency), but an agent has enough to decide to call 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.
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 gives a specific verb (检查/check) and three concrete resources: local Android dependencies, allowed directories, and backend status. It also carves out scope by negation (no device connection, no REA startup), which helps distinguish it from the device-oriented siblings, though it does not name any of them explicitly.
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 negative scoping ('does not connect to devices or start REA') implicitly tells the agent when not to reach for this tool and implies a local preflight/health-check role. However, it never states an explicit 'use this when...' condition or names an alternative tool to use instead for device work.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.