get_setup_status

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It says 'Get' and 'Shows', which imply a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it mention prerequisites, error conditions, or permissions. The verb choice gives a reasonable hint, but more transparency would be better.

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 two sentences long, concise, and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds relevant detail about what is shown, with no unnecessary words 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 zero-parameter status-check tool, the description provides sufficient context: what resource is being inspected and what state information is returned. It does not describe the exact response format, but that is less critical given the simplicity of the tool and absence of an output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter explanations are needed. The schema already reflects this with an empty object. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 the tool retrieves configuration status for Spirrow-Prismind and specifies that it shows required and optional settings with their configured/unconfigured state. This distinguishes it from siblings like configure (which modifies settings) and check_services_status (which checks service health).

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 for checking setup status but does not explicitly mention when to use it vs. alternatives such as export_server_config or get_connection_info. There is no direct 'use this when...' wording or reference to sibling tools, 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.