Get Setup Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and clearly states the operation is read-only. It also clarifies that the only parameter is a version header, preventing an agent from expecting functional arguments. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, the usage guidance follows immediately, and the parameter clarification is concise. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only status tool with an output schema, the description gives enough context: what it returns, when to call it, and what arguments it needs. Nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that the tool 'takes no arguments beyond the version header,' which directly clarifies the sole required parameter, server_version. It doesn't specify format details, but it correctly prevents misuse.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('workspace onboarding checklist') and clearly distinguishes the tool from the large sibling set. It also names the complementary mutation tool, complete_setup_step, which helps an agent understand the tool's role.

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 guidance: call this before suggesting or performing setup actions to avoid repeating completed steps. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative query tools, but the context is clear and actionable.

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