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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It appropriately reveals that the tool persists a key locally and includes a privacy-relevant instruction not to echo the key. It could further mention whether an existing key is overwritten, but the core behavior and safety guardrail are clearly disclosed.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage condition and safety instruction follow directly. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 single-parameter configuration tool, the description fully equips an agent to invoke it correctly: the exact trigger condition, the required input, and the key handling constraint are all present. No output schema or complex nested parameters create additional explanatory burden.

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%, so the parameter is already well documented as the explicitly provided Step Plan API Key. The description does not add significant new semantic meaning about the parameter itself, but it reinforces that the key must come from an explicit user request. This meets the baseline for a fully schema-covered parameter.

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 ('Save'), a concrete resource ('Step Plan API Key'), and the target context ('for this local MCP server'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools, which handle status, image generation, and text-to-speech rather than configuration.

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 provides explicit invocation criteria: use only when the user explicitly asks to configure or update Step Plan and provides a key. It also adds a behavioral restriction ('Do not echo the full key back to the user'), giving clear operational guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the high-level operation and prompt preparation, but it does not mention authentication/setup requirements (notable given the step_configure_api_key sibling), rate limits, side effects, or what the caller receives back. For a tool with no output schema, omitting the return behavior is a meaningful gap.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence leads with the action and target use cases; the second provides the single most important precondition. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 description plus schema cover the primary purpose, all parameters, and the key prompt-construction requirement. However, the tool has no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns or whether an API key/setup must be configured first. Those are relevant gaps for correct invocation in this tool family.

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%, and the schema parameter descriptions are unusually detailed, including guidance like 'Do not pass vague references like what we discussed; include the actual content.' The main tool description reinforces prompt semantics by instructing the agent to summarize the conversation into a complete prompt, adding value beyond the raw schema.

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?

Description states a specific action (generate an image) with a specific resource (Step Plan) and enumerates concrete artifact types: poster, infographic, cover image, social media graphic. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling text-to-speech and setup tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks to create an image, poster, visual report, infographic...' and gives a clear precondition: summarize the conversation into a complete image prompt before calling. It does not mention when not to use it or name an alternative image-generation tool, but none of the siblings compete for the same task, so the guidance is clear without exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It makes the read-only nature reasonably clear by saying 'Check whether', and it discloses the two conditions checked. However, it does not describe the exact return shape or confirm there are no side effects, which would strengthen behavioral transparency.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple status-check tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description explains what it checks and when to use it, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. A return-format detail would be a minor improvement but is not required for basic correctness.

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 and the schema covers everything implicitly. Per baseline for a zero-parameter tool, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail, so a 4 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 states a specific verb ('Check') and a concrete resource ('whether Step Plan MCP is installed and whether an API key is configured'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that configure, generate, or synthesize speech.

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 gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Use this when the user asks what Step Plan abilities are available or whether setup is complete.' It does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool synthesizes speech audio and warns the agent to pass exact text rather than a vague reference, which is useful. However, it does not mention any setup requirements, response format of the call result, or other side effects such as API key requirements or rate limits.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. All three sentences earn their place: the first defines the tool, the second gives usage conditions, and the third gives an important pre-call instruction. There is no redundant filler.

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 moderately simple and the schema covers all parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not mention prerequisites such as configuring an API key or what the agent should expect after invocation, such as an audio file URL or inline audio. The exact-text instruction helps, but the missing setup and result guidance leaves a meaningful gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters and defaults well. The description's only additional parameter guidance is to pass exact text, not a vague reference, which largely duplicates the schema text for the 'text' parameter. It adds no new semantic context for speed, voice, volume, instruction, or response_format.

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: 'Generate speech audio with Step Plan TTS.' It also names concrete inputs like text, scripts, narration, and dialogue, which makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from the sibling tools for setup, API configuration, and image generation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user asks to turn text, scripts, narration, ads, reports, or dialogue into an audio file.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the sibling tool names make the distinction obvious, so the usage context is clear.

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