get_setup_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool is a read operation (returns checklist) with no side effects. However, it does not detail the output structure beyond 'checklist', but since an output schema exists (context signals show true), the description does not need to fully describe the return format.

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 three sentences with no fluff. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the purpose, describing the output, and providing usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core function.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and moderate complexity with one parameter, the description covers the main purpose and usage adequately. However, the lack of parameter documentation and deeper behavioral details leaves gaps. The presence of many siblings does not demand more, but the parameter omission reduces completeness.

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 input schema has a single required parameter 'server_version' with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its role from the name alone. For a required parameter, this omission fails to add value and may cause 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 clearly states the tool returns 'project onboarding status' with a checklist of completed/pending steps. The verb 'Get' and resource 'setup status' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling get tools by focusing on onboarding setup, which is unique among the many get_* tools listed.

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 explicitly advises to check this before suggesting setup actions to avoid repeating already done steps, providing clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for an AI agent to decide.

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