doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; 'Check' suggests a non-mutating diagnostic action, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the command makes external/provider calls, modifies anything, or what 'readiness' entails, leaving room for assumptions.

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 an eight-word, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to defining the tool's scope.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, so return-value details are not required in the description. Still, the description leaves the meaning of 'provider readiness' and the role of workspace_path implicit, and it does not distinguish when to use doctor versus the sibling tools.

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 0% and the description does not mention workspace_path at all. The parameter's name and optional default make it partly self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning such as 'checks the specified workspace instead of the current one.'

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 mcpforge prerequisites and provider readiness'), so an agent can see this is a diagnostic tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'validate', which may also sound like a checking operation, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrasing implies the tool is used when the agent needs to verify that prerequisites are in place and providers are ready, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative routing among siblings such as validate or inspect.

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