setup_get_onboarding_prompt

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

No annotations provided. Description states it returns a prompt, implying no side effects, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, safety, or other behavioral traits. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, efficiently communicates purpose. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward return type (prompt), the description is largely complete. It could briefly hint at the prompt's content (e.g., 'includes steps for wallet creation and channel setup'), but current level is adequate.

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, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, but that is acceptable since there are no parameters to document.

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?

Clearly states it returns a conversational prompt for guiding user through setup. The verb 'returns' and resource 'conversational prompt' is specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling setup tools like setup_check_status by focusing on providing a prompt for step-by-step guidance.

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?

Implies the tool should be used when the AI needs to guide the user through setup, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With many sibling tools (setup_check_status, setup_complete_onboarding, etc.), explicit usage context would improve clarity.

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