step_get_setup_status

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.