alt_setup_instructions

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 only states what the tool returns, with no disclosure of side effects, prerequisites, or limitations. For a tool that likely performs a safe read operation, the description does not confirm this or provide any behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous information, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 returns static setup instructions and has no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it could be more complete by including an example or noting that the values are specific to a local stdio MCP server, which would further aid the agent.

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?

Although the schema has 50% description coverage (two parameters have descriptions), the tool's description does not add any meaning to the parameters. It only describes the return values, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema for parameter usage. The description adds no value beyond the existing schema documentation.

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 'Return exact field-by-field values for Alt's local (stdio) MCP server form', specifying a concrete verb ('return'), a specific resource ('Alt's local MCP server form'), and lists the fields involved. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'alt_capability_manifest' and 'alt_workflow_guide'.

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 usage when setup instructions are needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use the tool. The context of the sibling tools suggests it is specialized, but the description lacks definitive usage boundaries.

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