Tool Doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is read-only, whether it modifies anything, what triggers a failure, or what the 'diagnosis' output covers beyond the terse list.

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 very short and front-loads the key action with '一键诊断'. However, the phrase 'README 关键路径' is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer while remaining 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 tool, the description is minimal but does not explain what the diagnosis produces, how to interpret it, or when to choose it over tool_dependency_status. The existence of an output schema mitigates return-format concerns, but the tool's role and boundaries remain under-specified.

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 does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema is already complete, and the description adds no confusion about inputs.

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 clear verb ('diagnose') and names specific diagnostic targets: imports, dependency snapshot, and README key paths. This distinguishes it from the PDF-operation siblings, though it does not explicitly name overlapping alternatives like tool_dependency_status.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The sibling tool_dependency_status could plausibly overlap with the 'dependency snapshot' aspect, but the description gives no routing information.

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