send2orca_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only/safe operation, whether it probes the system or mutates anything, or how heavy the detection is (e.g., filesystem scans or launching the CLI). For a zero-annotation tool, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 with no padding. The phrasing is slightly awkward ("Report the SolidCraft CLI, running windows and OrcaSlicer") but nothing is wasted.

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, the description should convey what a diagnostic report contains; it only lists the subjects inspected, not the shape or content of the result. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the return value.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. 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 verb ("Report") and enumerates the subjects it inspects (SolidCraft CLI, running windows, OrcaSlicer), which hints at a diagnostic/environment-check tool. However, it never says what is actually reported (versions, paths, health status) and does not distinguish itself from the sibling send_to_orca, so the purpose remains only partially clear.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling send_to_orca as an alternative. An agent must infer that "doctor" means troubleshooting/diagnostics rather than the actual send operation.

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