Check Micro readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful scope detail about what is checked, but it does not explain behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, network access, or what constitutes 'readiness' beyond the listed components.

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, well-structured sentence immediately states the action and enumerates the full scope of the check. There is no redundant filler, and every listed item adds information about what the doctor verification covers.

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 tool has no parameters, strong safety annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. It could be slightly stronger by stating that this is the recommended first diagnostic step when environment/setup issues are suspected, but the core context is complete.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. According to the rubric, a no-parameter tool warrants a baseline of 4; the description reinforces the value by listing the environmental components inspected.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates exactly which resources and environment pieces are inspected (CLI, compiler, runner, platform, owner account, local project). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling status/readiness tools such as micro_status, micro_dev_status, or micro_platform_status.

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 about when to run micro_doctor versus the many status-related sibling tools. The description implies a general readiness/environment check, but it does not state when this tool is preferred or what distinguishes it from alternatives.

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