doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: it reports 'what's missing and the exact fix' and commits to 'never prints secrets', which is a meaningful safety guarantee. It also clarifies that live=true triggers a real network call rather than a static check.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with scope, followed by output/safety promise and the usage trigger. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 still tells the agent what comes back (missing items plus exact fixes) and what the optional flag does. Safety, scope, and invocation conditions are all covered for a zero-required-parameter 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the repo path resolution rules and the list_repos pointer). The description only adds the nuance that live=true tests the standalone-VBCS login, which is a marginal refinement over the schema wording; baseline 3 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?

The verb 'Diagnose' plus the object 'this install' is specific, and the description enumerates exactly what is checked (Node/git, workspace + repos, git credentials, build tools, Component Exchange URL, optional services). No sibling tool does environment diagnosis, so it is easily distinguished from git_* and vbcs_* tools.

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?

'Run this first when something doesn't work' gives an explicit trigger condition, and 'Set live=true to also test the standalone-VBCS login' conditions the optional mode. It does not state exclusions or contrast with alternatives such as run_audit or git_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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