Doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the check is local and read-only (except for a fetched platform section), and specifies that the platform section is read-only. It does not mention side effects, but the tool appears safe.

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 two efficient sentences. The first states the core purpose and lists checks; the second adds conditional behavior. No wasted words, essential information front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable understanding of the tool's behavior. It explains what it checks, conditional results, and parameter roles. Missing output format details but sufficient for a diagnostic tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and schema descriptions already explain the parameters clearly (project and environment). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond implying they affect the checks. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly defines the tool as running local readiness checks and lists specific components checked (project/environment resolution, mappings, credential env vars, audit writability). It distinguishes itself from siblings, which are primarily dashclaw-related tools, by focusing on local diagnostics.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (for readiness checks) and mentions conditional behavior when credentials are configured. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives, though the context is sufficient for an agent.

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