setup_get_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only information retrieval tool and specifies the exact categories of data returned. It does not describe the return format or error behavior for invalid setup paths, but the listed content is genuinely useful.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first front-loads exactly what the tool returns, and the second provides the intended use case. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return contents and the practical purpose. It could be slightly more complete by describing the return container or error behavior, but nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 100% for the single parameter, setup_path, with the schema already saying 'Setup path'. The description adds no additional parameter format or usage detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('Setup info'), and enumerates exactly what is included: input names, output names, transform names, plot names, and data length. This distinguishes it from narrower sibling getters like setup_get_inputs or setup_get_length.

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 phrase 'Useful for verifying Setup structure' provides a clear use case, and the word 'complete' implies this is for when all Setup details are needed at once. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the many granular sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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