Self-check

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description justifies that by explaining that install: true builds a missing engine environment and waits for completion. It also discloses that the tool reports fixes for missing items. It does not cover permissions or possible side effects beyond the install, but the key mutation behavior is clear.

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 front-loaded with the core reporting purpose, then gives the failure scenario and the install exception. The long enumeration is useful but makes the first sentence dense; overall it is efficient with no irrelevant content.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the diagnostic categories the tool reports, including versions, environment, browser, attach target, configuration, and fixes. Combined with the install behavior and failure-triage guidance, an agent has enough context to call it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that install builds a missing environment or retries a failed install and returns when done. The description reinforces this but adds no meaningful syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 states a specific diagnostic verb and resource: report what the browser tools need and whether it is present, enumerating interpreter, engine, harness, environment, browser, attach target, config, and fixes. This clearly distinguishes browser_doctor from action siblings like browser_act or browser_open, which perform browser work rather than diagnose the setup.

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?

It gives an explicit usage rule: 'Call it first when browser work fails.' That is strong guidance for the primary scenario. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling appears to serve the same diagnostic role.

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