doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context by listing the specific areas checked (ports, paths, allowlist, concurrency), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's scope without contradicting its read-only nature.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists key checks without filler. Every element adds informational value, making it appropriately concise 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?

While the description clearly states what is checked, it does not describe the output format or return value. Since there is no output schema, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect from the invocation, which is a notable gap for a diagnostic tool.

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 the input schema fully documents this with no properties. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description cannot add parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 the specific verb 'Check' and enumerates concrete resources (local Codex, proxy ports, state paths, model allowlist, concurrency), making its purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling task-management tools like list_tasks or wait_tasks, which focus on orchestration rather than health inspection.

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 implies a diagnostic use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tools are mentioned, and there is no guidance on when not to use it, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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