Setup Background Checker

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

The description discloses platform-specific behavior (launchd on macOS, cron on Linux), writes results to ~/.depsonar-cache.json, and notes zero RAM/tokens/cost between runs. This goes beyond the annotations (e.g., idempotentHint) and gives the agent a realistic picture of side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured: first sentence defines the action, then platform notes, then operational details, then result location, and ends with concrete examples. Each sentence earns its place with no redundant fluff.

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 setup tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the operation's lifecycle, platform variations, the cache file, and integration with depsonar_alerts. It does not explain return values (no output schema), but that is not a major gap for this tool. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by embedding usage in examples ('Check my deps every 12 hours' maps to interval_hours, 'Remove the background checker' maps to uninstall), making the parameters more concrete than the schema alone.

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 opens with 'Install or remove the background dependency checker,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like depsonar_check (which likely runs an immediate check) by emphasizing background/scheduled execution. The examples further clarify the purpose.

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 provides examples like 'Setup background dependency checking' and 'Remove the background checker,' making it clear when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like depsonar_check, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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