gaihen_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the filesystem side effect (folder + three .bat files) and the wait semantics, but says nothing about overwrite/idempotency behavior, required permissions, or errors if the folder already exists.

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 compact, front-loads the primary action, and then unpacks each parameter in a single clause. No filler, though the parameter glossary reads as a flat list rather than tightly flowing prose.

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 mutating setup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is created and what each argument means, but omits overwrite behavior, prerequisites, and success/failure signaling, which are relevant for a first-time setup step.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: exchange is defined as a machine-local folder with its default and env fallback, win_exchange as the same folder as seen from the Windows PC with a concrete example, and wait as the response timeout in seconds.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: creating an exchange folder and three named .bat files (JWMCP_send / send_all / import) for Jw_cad 外部変形. It's clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly position itself against siblings like gaihen_status or gaihen_prepare_import.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or when-not guidance. The setup intent is only implied by the name and the creation verb. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this must run once before the other gaihen_* tools or can be re-run safely.

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