projector_setup

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the valuable prerequisite/ordering constraint, but says nothing about whether settings persist, whether re-invocation overwrites previous values, or what happens on failure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and ending with the critical ordering instruction. No redundant or filler text.

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 5-parameter, 1-required setup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, fields, and the prerequisite. The main gap is behavior on re-run (does it replace or merge config), which matters for a stateful setup 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter carries its own description including defaults (5555, 2323). The description only restates the field names, so it adds no semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (configure) and resource (projector connection) and enumerates the exact settings it controls (IP, ADB port, FKB password, dashboard URL). This clearly separates it from the projector_* action siblings like projector_wake or projector_show_dashboard.

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 tells the agent to run this first before using other projector tools, which is a strong ordering/prerequisite cue. It does not state when not to use it (e.g., re-running overwrites existing config) or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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