doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that checks are timeout-bounded server-side, that details expose key names only (no paths or secret values), and that it is safe for every role. Missing only notes on latency/cost or whether checks can be selectively run — but there are no params anyway.

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 short sentences, verb-and-scope front-loaded, followed by the return shape and the safety guarantee. Nothing is padded or restated from the title.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (per-check {status, detail} plus a worst-of top-level status) and the safety characteristics of those details. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed, and the enumerated check domains clarify what the argument-less call will cover.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('daemon's bounded environment health checks') with the checked domains enumerated (docker/gpu/proxy/db), which distinguishes it from per-service siblings like diagnose_service and diagnose_project. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the distinction is inferred from scope rather than stated.

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 scope ('daemon's environment health') implies a preflight/triage use case, but the description never says when to call this versus diagnose_service, diagnose_project, or capabilities/proxy_status. Usage must be inferred from the enumerated check categories.

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