doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals that the tool performs environment checking and does not call the OCR API, which signals read-only, non-destructive behavior. It does not describe response semantics or failure behavior, but for a no-parameter self-check this is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose, the specific check targets, and a key exclusion. No wasted words, every element adds value.

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 zero-parameter self-check tool, the description is essentially complete: the agent knows what it does and what it does not do. The main gap is that no output or return behavior is described, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, this is a minor omission.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% description coverage, so there is nothing to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: performing an environment self-check on dependencies and API key configuration. It explicitly says '不调用 OCR API' (does not call OCR API), which distinguishes it from the sibling OCR tools with no ambiguity.

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 description implies this is a preflight check for OCR-related tasks by stating it verifies dependencies and API keys without invoking the OCR API. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus starting an OCR job or checking status, so the usage context is only implied.

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