doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'check' and 'report' imply a non-mutating diagnostic read, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, return format, or what happens when no providers are installed. For a parameterless, likely safe tool, the core behavior is covered but not deeply.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action ('Check') and clearly states the output ('report its version'). There is zero fluff; every word earns its place.

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 simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what will happen and what the result will be. The only missing context is clarification of what 'supported providers' means and whether this is a safe/read-only operation, though 'check' strongly implies it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description need not explain parameters. It correctly references 'each supported provider' as a fixed scope, adding no confusion.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Check whether each supported provider CLI is installed') and a concrete result ('report its version'). It is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'providers' or 'status' because it focuses on installation/version diagnostics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios (e.g., diagnosing environment setup), or exclusions. The purpose is clear, but the agent is left to infer when 'doctor' is appropriate among 16 siblings.

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