play_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the specific checks performed, including a conditional behavior ('if creds are present'), and notes the non-check of local toolchain. It doesn't explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or what happens on failure, but 'verify' implies non-mutation, adding useful context.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, then enumerate specific checks, then provide usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it verifies, when to use it, and a scope clarification. It lacks an explicit statement about return values or failure behavior, but the 'verify' intent makes the outcome reasonably predictable.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description explains what the tool acts on (PLAY_PACKAGE_NAME and credentials), which are environment-level context rather than parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional parameter information is needed.

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 states a specific verb 'Verify' with a clear resource: Play release config end-to-end, detailing exactly what it checks (service-account credentials, package name, API reachability). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like play_app_status or play_upload_bundle by focusing on pre-flight release setup verification.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Run this first in any release session', which is a clear when-to-use directive. Also clarifies what it does not do ('No local toolchain check is needed'), providing a when-not. However, it doesn't name specific alternative tools for different scenarios, only implying sequencing.

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