rf_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the action ('Check', 'Reports') and lists the three check categories, but it does not state whether the tool modifies anything, makes network calls, or has runtime implications. Acceptable for a zero-parameter diagnostic, but not fully 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?

Three short sentences: the first states purpose, the second names the concrete output areas, and the third gives the usage rule. Every sentence earns its place with no padding or repetition of schema content.

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-argument diagnostic with an output schema, the description fully tells an agent what the tool checks and when to call it. There are no hidden inputs or required clarifications, and the output schema can handle the exact return format.

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 schema fully defines the invocation surface. The description adds task-level context about what will be checked, but no parameter-level detail is needed; baseline 4 applies.

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') and resource ('the RF toolchain on this machine'), then enumerates the concrete checks: AEDT install, Python packages, and Altium bridge reachability. This clearly distinguishes it from the design, solve, and export siblings as a pre-flight diagnostic tool.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call this first when anything behaves oddly.' It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives, but the toolchain-wide diagnostic scope makes the intended use unmistakable.

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