setup_check

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state side effects, safety (e.g., read-only), or prerequisites, though the nature of a 'check' implies it is safe. More explicit behavioral context would improve this score.

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 brief and well-structured: a main sentence, usage guidance, and an args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 is simple (one optional boolean parameter) and has an output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, and parameter adequately. It lacks details about expected output format, but the presence of an output schema compensates.

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% (no descriptions in the schema), but the tool's description includes an Args section explaining the 'show_workflows' parameter as 'Include common question-to-tool workflows,' adding significant meaning beyond the schema's title.

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 checks local setup and explains the easiest next action, using specific verbs and a unique resource. It distinguishes itself from the many data-analysis sibling tools by being a meta-tool for troubleshooting.

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 says 'Use this first when the MCP seems empty, stale, misconfigured, or when you are not sure which tool to call next,' providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, effectively acting as a fallback option.

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