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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral context: the tool returns setup commands that must be actioned using the Bash tool, and it must not be used without first gathering user preferences. This explains the tool's role in an automated workflow and the agent's responsibilities, going well beyond the annotation's simple safety signal.

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 somewhat long but well-structured: it opens with a clear purpose, then lists trigger phrases, and then provides critical rules in a bulleted list. Every section adds value, and the formatting improves scannability, so the length is justified.

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 tool with 2 enum parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: when to use it, prerequisites (ask user preferences), expected output (setup commands), and the required next action (execute via Bash). It thoroughly explains the tool's role in a fully automated project creation scenario, leaving no critical gaps.

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 schema already describes the parameters with enum values and short descriptions. The description enhances this by explicitly listing the user preferences that map to parameters (UI Toolkit: Swing, JavaFX, SWT, or Compose Desktop; Build Tool: Gradle or Maven) and instructing that the agent must ask for these before calling. This adds practical context beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 step-by-step instructions for an AI assistant to set up a new JxBrowser project' and lists specific trigger phrases (create, scaffold, bootstrap, etc.). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'ask-jxbrowser-question' by focusing on project setup rather than Q&A.

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 explicitly defines when to use the tool ('should be called when the user asks to create, start, scaffold, bootstrap, init, template, or generate a JxBrowser project') and provides critical rules, including never calling before knowing the user's preferences and executing returned commands via Bash. This gives clear context and exclusions, leaving no ambiguity.

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