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

While annotations confirm it is a safe, read-only operation, the description adds significant behavioral detail by defining the output structure (resumable state model, tailoring to agent capabilities, structured cost facts). This provides much richer context than the hints alone.

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 dense and slightly verbose, listing every component of the runbook (state model, contract, links). However, this high level of detail is necessary to manage user expectations for such a complex, multi-part setup guide. It is not overly concise but is highly effective.

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?

The description is exceptionally complete for a setup tool. It covers the specific goal, the required variables, the format of the output, and its operational constraints (e.g., agent capabilities like shell/browser access). Nothing critical is missing.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the parameters are fully defined in the input schema. The description does not add any semantic meaning or deeper explanation beyond what is already provided in the structured input definitions. This aligns with the baseline score for high coverage.

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 the tool provides an 'Ordered, executable runbook for connecting a user to Martini'. It is highly specific and distinguishes its function (setup/connection runbooks) from the general film/MCP tools in the sibling list.

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 includes explicit guidance on 'when not to use Martini,' which is helpful for routing the user. However, it does not compare this setup guide against all relevant sibling tools like get_install_config or plan_film_stack, leaving a small gap in exclusion criteria.

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