splithub_doctor

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a behavioral contract ('ok: false lists what to fix'), which tells the agent this is a read/diagnostic operation and how failure is surfaced. However, it omits whether it mutates anything, what a passing response looks like, or any auth/runtime preconditions.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action ('Check the installation') followed by scoped enumerations, ending with the actionable 'ok: false' hint. Dense but each clause (framework-specific checks, timing cue, output contract) earns its place; only the long run-on structure is a minor weakness.

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 does reasonable work by hinting at the ok:false contract, but for a multi-target diagnostic it remains thin on what a successful result contains and how findings are structured. Adequate to attempt the call, incomplete for interpreting results.

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 takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. Nothing about parameters needs explaining, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics.

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 ('Check the installation') and enumerates the concrete targets (config, provider, middleware, routes, code references, endpoint) plus framework-specific variations. This is far more specific than a tautology, though it never names or distinguishes itself from likely-adjacent siblings like splithub_status or splithub_whoami.

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?

Provides one lifecycle cue ('Run after wiring code'), which is a genuine usage signal, but offers no exclusions or alternatives among the 35 siblings, and does not clarify how it differs from related diagnostic tools such as splithub_status or splithub_whoami. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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