Diagnose Setup

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it never throws, is safe to call repeatedly, and returns a structured report with nextSteps, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise (5 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. No wasted words.

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?

Given no parameters and a rich output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage context, and return structure comprehensively. It is complete for a diagnostic 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description focuses on the output, detailing the return fields including status, nextSteps, and ready, which adds value beyond the schema.

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 identifies it as a 'stateless probe' for first-time-setup configuration, listing specific components (access token, Snowflake credentials, repo path, coa doctor). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'coa_doctor' and 'diagnose_run_failure'.

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 states to use 'during or after the /coalesce-setup prompt flow to confirm progress' and notes it is safe to call repeatedly. Implicitly suggests it is not for runtime diagnostics, but does not explicitly list when to avoid.

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