Guided RIS setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces this ('Read-only — it never changes anything') and adds genuinely useful behavior: it does not perform fixes, it points to the exact tool or command to run next. That routing behavior is not captured by any annotation.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the plain-English checklist framing and immediately followed by the key constraint (read-only) and the payoff (next step). No filler, though the state list is slightly dense.

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 read-only wizard with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is inspected and what the agent gets back (a recommended next step). It falls short on the three undocumented parameters and on how this tool relates to the many adjacent validation/status siblings.

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 4 parameters and only 25% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. Only 'profile' is documented (in the schema itself); host, user, and alias are never explained in the description, so an agent cannot tell when to supply them or whether they narrow the inspection scope.

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 gives a concrete verb-and-resource picture: it inspects setup state (username, SSH key/config, Duo, account/workspace) and reports the single next step. That is more specific than most siblings, though it never names an alternative tool, so differentiation from ris_validate_config or ris_auth_status is left to inference.

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 implied (run this when you're setting up or stuck), and the phrase 'tells you the single next step' suggests it acts as a router. However, it never states when to prefer it over ris_validate_config, ris_auth_status, or ris_researcher_wizard, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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