setup_local

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It honestly discloses that it clones and registers routing, but lacks details on idempotency, behavior if the folder already exists, permission requirements, or side effects on existing local changes. More transparency would be beneficial for a mutating tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs in the verb, resource, destination, and a helpful parenthetical list of file types. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool mutates local state and registers routing, but the description does not explain expected return values, prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), or error scenarios. Since there is no output schema, more detail would aid completeness, yet the core behavior is adequately conveyed.

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%, with both parameters fully described (projectName fuzzy match, localPath default resolution). The description adds minimal extra semantics ('visible', 'full working tree') but does not go beyond the schema in explaining parameter usage.

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 ('clone') and resource ('project'), clearly stating the destination ('visible local folder') and the registration side effect. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pull_local (syncing an existing copy) and sync_projects (overall sync).

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 implies use for initial local setup and mentions that reads/writes route there, suggesting ongoing usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with pull_local (updating an existing local copy) or push_local, leaving when-to-use vs alternatives ambiguous.

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