Local Setup Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description reinforces by stating 'without mutating files'. No contradictions. The description adds the 'review-first' nuance but does not elaborate on auth, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It packs purpose and non-mutation but omits parameter details. While short, it does not maximize information density for the agent.

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 annotations and an output schema, the description fails to compensate for missing parameter descriptions or provide context about the output format. Given four parameters and a complex domain, the description is incomplete for effective tool selection.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, placing full burden on the description to explain parameters. The description mentions none of the four parameters (mode, image, client, command). It does not describe how they affect output. This is a critical gap given low schema coverage.

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 the tool returns setup commands for specific components (vault, MCP, provider, hook, scheduler) without mutating files. The verb 'return' and the list of components make the purpose specific. However, 'review-first' is ambiguous, and the title 'Local Setup Plan' is somewhat generic among siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like memory.setup_health or other plan tools. The description does not indicate prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent would not know if this is the right tool for generating setup commands interactively or for documentation.

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