geck_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects. The verb 'check' strongly implies a read-only diagnostic, but the description does not explicitly state that nothing is modified or what happens when optional dependencies are missing. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 single-purpose sentence with no filler; the core action and target are front-loaded. It earns its place and could not be shortened without losing 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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, which covers return-value details, but the description omits how the optional game_dir parameter is used and gives no usage context. An agent cannot confidently choose arguments or determine when this diagnostic is appropriate.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter, game_dir, is not mentioned in the tool description at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's title, leaving the agent to guess how game_dir affects the path checks.

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 'Check paths and optional dependencies for this GECK MCP server' states a specific action and a specific resource, and it is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, none of which are diagnostic. It stops short of a 5 because 'paths' is somewhat underspecified and it does not explicitly contrast with related tools.

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?

No guidance is given for when to invoke geck_doctor versus any of the 40+ sibling tools. The description implies a health-check use case but does not state prerequisites, when to prefer it, or what conditions warrant running it.

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