run_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 only names the command to run and does not mention side effects, network usage, output format, or whether the command modifies the project. This is a thin description for a tool that executes an external process.

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 only one short sentence and contains no wasted words, so it is concise in size. However, it is under-specified: it reads more like a command reminder than a tool definition. The brevity does not compensate for the missing context.

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?

This is a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needed to explain what running expo-doctor accomplishes and what projectPath is. It does neither, leaving an agent without enough context to reliably select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% and the only parameter, projectPath, is not described anywhere. The description does not explain how projectPath is used, whether it is optional, or what happens if it is omitted. With zero parameter description in the schema and zero mention in the description, the agent must guess the parameter's meaning.

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 'Run npx expo-doctor' specifies a concrete action and the exact resource being invoked. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, several of which are device and layout operations. It loses a point because it never states what expo-doctor actually does or what outcome the agent should expect.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as run_maestro_flow, install_deps, or manage_bundler. There is no mention of project health checking, prerequisites, or when running expo-doctor is appropriate.

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