doctor

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only reporting action but does not explain the meaning of 'live', what the timeout controls, whether any external access occurs, or what kind of host information is collected.

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 very short and free of fluff, which makes it concise. However, it is so minimal that it lacks meaningful structure or detail, and it leaves two parameters with unexplained behavior.

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 output schema covers return values, so that omission is acceptable, but the description still fails to explain the live/timeout behavior or offer any usage context. For a tool with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, this is incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The meanings of 'live' and 'timeout_seconds' are left entirely to the agent to infer from names and defaults, providing no value beyond the input schema.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('installed host and PyAnsys capabilities'), so the tool's diagnostic purpose is immediately evident. It is also distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on model inspection, region resolution, validation, and run lifecycle management.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or recommended context, such as running it before a simulation. The intended use is weakly implied by 'Report capabilities' but never made explicit.

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