Wire agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description goes further: it states the tool is read-only static data, works without the Guard libraries installed, and that unknown languages/frameworks return an error object rather than raising. That error-contract disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the sibling routing, then structured into usage and return-shape. It is on the long side and enumerates return fields that an output schema already carries, so it is slightly over budget rather than maximally tight.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return values, yet its usage guidance, error-handling contract, dependency note, and sibling routing leave nothing essential missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by explaining the framework parameter's effect (python note points at the bundled guard-agent doc page, other languages are standalone and the note says so). That clarifies output implications of the parameter rather than merely restating it.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource (get the setup for the Guard telemetry agent) and immediately scopes it to 'one language'. It names the sibling adapter_setup and states the boundary between them, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the use case ('ship security events and metrics to the guard-core-app backend') and names the alternative ('Use adapter_setup instead for the request-blocking middleware itself'), which is an explicit when-to-use/when-to-use-something-else rule.

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