AI Disk Doctor Core Status

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

The description adds contextual detail beyond the annotations by listing specific aspects checked (availability, command surface, semantic version, compatibility provenance) and explicitly reaffirms non-invasive behavior. Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the description enhances rather than contradicts them.

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 conveys all essential details without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, and the sentence is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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 is low-complexity (no parameters) and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers what the tool checks (availability, command surface, version, provenance) and its side-effect-free nature. It is complete for an information-only status check.

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 no parameters and the schema is fully covered. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description is not expected to elaborate on them, and the zero-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Check') with a specific resource ('local AI Disk Doctor Core availability, required command surface, semantic version, and compatibility provenance'). It differentiates from sibling tools like scan_summary and ai_model_inventory by emphasizing it does not scan or modify files.

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 this is a safe read-only status check but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives. It notes it avoids scanning and modifying, which hints at contrast with scan_summary, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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