setup_figtree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: a network download, a compile step, that jar_path is whitelisted and suppresses compilation, and that check_only suppresses both steps. It omits where artifacts are written, failure modes, and permission/network requirements, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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 opening sentence front-loads the core action, and the Args list is compact and scannable with zero filler. No wasted sentences, though the arg lines are terse enough to feel like schema restatement in places.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a tool that downloads and compiles, though, the description says nothing about dependencies required, environment assumptions, or what happens on a failed compile, leaving gaps an agent would need to discover by calling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: all three parameters are given semantics beyond their types (jar_path whitelisted and no-compile, check_only skips download/compile, verbose prints progress). It stops short of format examples or default-value restatement.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: downloads or uses a provided JAR and compiles the patched FigTree JAR. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like check_figtree or get_environment, though the description never names or contrasts those alternatives explicitly.

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 Args block implies usage conditions (pass jar_path to skip compilation, set check_only to only verify dependencies), which is genuine conditional guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over check_figtree or get_environment, nor what prerequisites (Java, network) are required.

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