doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal a key limitation (does not verify login state or terms acceptance) and implies a non-mutating check. However, it omits any mention of return format, potential errors, or side effects. It gives some transparency but not comprehensive coverage for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about login state is placed second. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing. The description is efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states what it checks, names the relevant overrides, and explicitly says what it does not verify. The main gap is the lack of any indication of the return format or what a successful check looks like. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on the output type would have made it more complete, but the current description still covers the essential behavior.

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, so the schema already provides complete coverage (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not add any parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. There is nothing missing in this dimension.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Check supported AI CLI binary availability and path resolution'), names the specific binaries (Grok and Pi) and the environment variable overrides. It also explicitly states what it does not do (verify login state or terms acceptance), which distinguishes it from any related tools. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose that differentiates it from the process and model sibling 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a diagnostic purpose but never names a sibling or a condition that would select this tool over another. The negative statement ('Does not verify login state') hints at a limitation but does not say 'use X when you need login verification'. Without any when/when-not guidance, the agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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