doctor

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It details six specific checks, the ok/warn/fail reporting, and actionable advice, but does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating. The diagnostic nature strongly implies read-only, yet an explicit 'does not modify anything' would strengthen transparency.

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 well-structured with clear 'Use when', 'Returns', and 'Do not use when' sections. Every sentence earns its place, front-loaded with the most important usage context, and remains concise.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers when to use, what the six checks are, how results are reported, and the alternative tool. No significant gaps exist.

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 description need not explain parameter details. It does add value by explaining what the tool checks and returns, which is a baseline-4 performance for a parameterless tool.

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 explicitly states this is a full setup diagnostic for osxphotos, triggered by specific error types, and differentiates from the lightweight health-check sibling by naming it. The verb+resource is implied through 'diagnostic' and the six checks.

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 explicit when-to-use ('permission, unable to open, or write tools are disabled' errors, or before querying/exporting/writing) and when-not-to-use ('lightweight is-it-working smoke test — use health-check instead'). Names the alternative sibling tool.

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