sg_setup_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool performs a status check and provides links for missing keys, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe the response format. More detail on return structure or side effects would improve transparency, but the described behavior is inherently benign.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Check configuration status') followed by a secondary benefit. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description is reasonably complete for a simple, parameterless status tool. It tells the user what to expect (configuration status and missing-key links). However, a brief note on the output format or how to interpret the status would make it fully self-contained.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed, and the description does not introduce any confusing parameter-related ambiguity.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('configuration status for all SG Gov MCP tiers') plus an additional action ('get links for missing API keys'). This distinguishes it strongly from sibling tools, which are all data-fetching tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context (during setup or when needing to verify API key configuration) and clearly defines the tool's scope ('all SG Gov MCP tiers'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but given the unique role among siblings, no such guidance is necessary.

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