check_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool does. It discloses that it verifies setup components and is meant as a first step, but it does not describe what the tool returns, whether it is strictly read-only, or how failures are reported. The behavior is mostly transparent but not fully specified.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, the enumerated items provide concrete scope, and the usage rule is a natural second sentence.

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 simple zero-parameter preflight tool, the description covers what is checked and when to run it. The main gap is that it does not explain the return format or how to interpret the result, and there is no output schema to provide that information.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is missing.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('everything needed to debug is in place'), then enumerates the concrete items involved: probe software, connected probe, target device name, and optional readability files. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_devices or diagnose_crash.

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 gives explicit usage context: run this first when anything fails, or when starting on a new machine. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of full 5-level guidance.

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