get_setup_guide

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: the provenance split between 'documented' (README/CI) and 'inferred' (filename-based, unverified) items, and the explicit guarantee that no command is ever executed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the documented/inferred provenance distinction, then the no-execution guarantee, then the arg. Slightly formal in layout but every sentence earns its place; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the key trust caveat (inferred hints are unverified) and the no-execution guarantee, leaving only minor gaps such as how much of a repo is scanned.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that path is a repository directory and that relative paths resolve against the first approved root. This is resolution semantics the schema's bare string type does not convey.

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 specific verb and resource: finding how a project should be installed, run and tested. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings inspect_repository or find_relevant_code, which an agent could plausibly pick instead.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs setup/install/test instructions, and the 'No command is ever executed' line hints at a safe, read-only use case. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the sibling tools.

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