setup_get_outputs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' implies a non-mutating read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention return format, error behavior for invalid setup paths, or whether the operation has side effects. This is acceptable for a simple getter but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to identifying the operation, and it is immediately scannable by an agent.

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 getter with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, scope, and implied return of names. It could be enhanced by noting that it only returns names and not output details, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter with 'Setup path'. The description's phrase 'in this Setup' maps the parameter to the operation's scope but adds no new detail about format, constraints, or behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Output names'), and scope ('in this Setup'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling getters like setup_get_inputs and setup_get_transforms by naming exactly what is retrieved.

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 usage context is implied by the tool name and sibling list: use this when you need output names for a setup rather than inputs, transforms, or plots. However, the description itself provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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