get_setup_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral policy beyond that: demo knowledge bases do not count as user setup, and the agent should stop asking if the user defers. It omits the rest of the status payload, but the added workflow guidance is substantive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and action, with each subsequent sentence carrying a distinct policy rule. No filler, though the phrasing is terse enough that 'setup' is only clarified by context.

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?

With no output schema, the description should characterize the return value more fully; it surfaces only one field name (needs_knowledge_base) and leaves other possible status fields unspecified. For a simple read-only status tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. The mention of 'needs_knowledge_base' is a return-state reference rather than a parameter, so it does not add parameter semantics.

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 pairs a verb with a resource (check setup after installation) and hints at the returned state via 'needs_knowledge_base'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_knowledge_bases or connect_knowledge_base, but the scope (post-install setup check) is discernible.

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?

It gives a clear trigger ('After installation') and a conditional follow-up branch (if needs_knowledge_base, ask the user for a directory in the current chat), plus a stop condition if the user defers. No alternative tools are named, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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