electron_setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that it finds an app, generates a command, and returns the exact command to run, implying it does not launch the app itself. It also specifies the search location (/Applications), which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it does not mention potential side effects or error behavior, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 description is two sentences that are direct and informative. The first sentence states the primary action and purpose, and the second clarifies the output. There is no redundant or fluff content, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, its input context, and the nature of its return value ('exact command to run'). It does not specify the format of the returned command or what happens if the app is not found, but these are relatively minor gaps given its simplicity. With no output schema, the description's mention of the return value helps fill that void.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (app_name, v8_port, cdp_port) having descriptive text. The description itself does not add additional meaning about the parameters, such as how they map to the debugging flags or how the ports are used, but it does state the overall purpose of generating a command with debugging flags. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, which 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 clearly states the tool's function: find an Electron app in /Applications and generate a launch command with debugging flags. It uses specific verbs ('Find', 'generate') and identifies the resource (Electron app) and the outcome (launch command with debugging flags). This distinguishes it from siblings like electron_connect which likely attaches to a running app, and chrome which handles Chrome specifically.

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 implies its usage: when you need to set up an Electron app for debugging by generating a launch command. It clearly indicates the context (finding the app in /Applications) and that it returns the command rather than executing it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like electron_connect, leaving room for a higher score.

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