setup_check_status

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

Description discloses return value (configured, missing, next step) but no annotations provided. Lacks details on side effects, permissions, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, concise and front-loaded with key purpose and output. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy.

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?

Description adequately covers purpose and output for a simple status check tool with no parameters. Minor gap in not specifying exact config items checked, but sufficient for an AI agent.

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?

No parameters, baseline 4 per scoring rules. Description adds no param info, but schema coverage is 100% (empty) so no compensation needed.

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 clearly states it checks configuration status with specific verb 'check' and resource 'AgenticBTC configuration status'. Distinguishes from sibling setup tools by focusing on status inspection rather than configuration actions.

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?

Implied usage to check config status, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives mentioned. Sibling tools suggest context but description lacks direct guidance.

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