doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: 'Read-only: inspects the environment and changes nothing.' That safety profile is exactly what an agent needs before invoking a tool with no annotation hints. It stops short of describing the report's shape, but the core behavior is covered.

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 tight sentences in a logical order: what it checks, its safety property, and the trigger for using it. No sentence is filler, and the trigger routing is front-loaded in the last sentence where it is most actionable.

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 and no annotations, the description must stand alone, and it adequately covers purpose, read-only nature, and invocation trigger. A brief hint about the report's content or exit signaling would close the remaining gap, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

Only one optional parameter, project_root, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description does not add format or defaulting details beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource (check the TypeScript→WASM toolchain, esbuild/javy) plus the exact output (what is missing or misconfigured). An agent can distinguish this diagnostic tool from compile_gene and the other gene-management siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Names an explicit trigger and the sibling context: 'Use this when compile_gene fails — a missing or broken toolchain is the most common cause.' This gives a clear when-to-use rule with the rationale, though it offers no when-not condition or alternative diagnostic path.

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