setup_get_inputs

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states that it gets names, implying a read-only operation. It does not disclose the return format (e.g., list of strings), behavior for invalid setup_path, or whether any state is read at a particular time; the 'Get' verb suggests no side effects but this is implied rather than explicit.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy 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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema), and the description states that the result is the input names. However, without annotations or an output schema, an agent is left to infer return type and error behavior, and the distinction between 'Input names' and similar setup_get_* concepts is not fully specified.

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?

The input schema already documents setup_path at 100% coverage with 'Setup path', so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. The phrase 'in this Setup' weakly maps to setup_path but gives no format, examples, or interpretation.

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 and resource, 'Get all Input names', and scopes it to a Setup, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup_get_outputs or setup_get_svars. It does not explicitly name alternatives, and 'Input names' retains some ambiguity about whether it means top-level input objects or input fields, so not a full 5.

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 'in this Setup' phrasing implies the tool should be used when a setup's input names are needed. It provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, and the distinction from input_get_* / setup_get_outputs has to be inferred.

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