sentarion_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important traits: the operation is read-only and it never prints secrets (relevant since it checks an API key). It stops short of saying whether checks hit the network, how long they take, or what happens when a component is unreachable.

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?

One dense sentence listing the checked components followed by a short safety clause; the purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler. Every clause adds information an agent can act on.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the whole load. It does describe the intended output ('say exactly what to fix') and the safety profile, but omits the undocumented timeout_s and gives no sense of result shape or failure reporting for a seven-component 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?

Schema coverage is 0%: the single parameter timeout_s has no description in the schema, and the tool description never mentions it, so an agent gets no guidance on its meaning, unit, or whether it applies per-check or overall. The default of 3 is the only signal available.

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 specific verb ('Check') plus an explicit resource ('everything Sentarion needs'), and enumerates the concrete dependencies verified (git, Algernon, chamber, ArkHive, fleet provider, Ollama, API key). This lets an agent separate it from siblings like verify, worktree, or sentarion_quickstart 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?

Usage is only implied: the diagnostic framing ('say exactly what to fix') suggests running it when something is broken or before setup, but no explicit when-to-use, ordering relative to sentarion_quickstart/sentarion_birth, or exclusions are stated. Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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