doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is inspected (dependency versions, asset readiness) but not whether the check is purely read-only or may modify state ('asset readiness' is ambiguous), nor what failure output or exit status looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the usage trigger second. No filler, no redundancy.

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 diagnostic with no output schema, the definition covers what it does and when to run it. It is slightly incomplete in not hinting at the result format or what to do on a failing check, but that is minor for such a simple 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with the description, which correctly implies no caller-supplied 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 names a concrete function - checking dependency versions and asset readiness - which is a specific diagnostic task distinct from the sibling charting tools (profile_data, list_chart_types, render_chart). 'Preflight' is slightly jargonistic but the colon clause disambiguates it clearly.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Run once after install,' which tells the agent exactly when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the siblings are unrelated charting utilities so no routing guidance is needed.

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