pt_setup_instructions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the setup is one-time and PT-side, and the condition that makes it relevant. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether the output is human-readable text or structured steps, but for a zero-param read-only tool this is largely implied.

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?

A single sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the conditional trigger appended in parentheses. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 no-input, read-only, no-output-schema helper, the description covers what it produces and when it is needed. The only missing piece is the shape of the return (steps vs link vs prose), which is low stakes here.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description needs to compensate for schema coverage, which is reported at 100% for an empty object.

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 resource and intent: instructions for installing the one-time PT-side bridge module. An agent can tell this is a documentation/help tool rather than a mutation tool, though the verb is implicit ('How to install') rather than an explicit 'returns instructions for'. Sibling differentiation comes via the reference to pt_status rather than a direct contrast.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition: use it when pt_status reports NOT CONNECTED. That is a concrete when-to-use rule tied to a named sibling. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., when already connected) or what to do after following the instructions.

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