native_doctor

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds value by explaining 're-probes live each call' and details the return structure ('{ ios, androidInteractions, androidBuild }' with nested fields). No contradiction; adds behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide usage guidance, then output structure. Every sentence is informative with no waste.

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 with no output schema, the description fully explains what it does, when to use, and what it returns (including the shape of the result). No gaps remain.

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?

No parameters, so description has no param info. Baseline is 4 for zero-param tools. The description does not need to add parameter meanings.

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 states 'report native readiness without building or opening anything' and lists the specific areas (iOS simulator, Android device interactions, Android build toolchain). It distinguishes itself from siblings like native_build and native_open by being a read-only health check.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (after installing missing tool, before native_build/native_open, proactively before long build) and contrasts with native_build and native_open. Also notes 'cockpit-only, read-only' to clarify scope.

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