run_setup_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior and that results are structured with pass/warn/fail and fix instructions. It could provide more detail on error handling or performance, but the transparency is good for a simple check tool.

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 concise with two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, what is validated, return type, and read-only nature.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it checks, what it returns, and that it is read-only. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions) or whether it is safe to run multiple times, but it is adequate for a setup check.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. According to the rules, baseline is 4 for zero parameters. The description does not need to add further semantics.

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 it checks MCP setup readiness and returns structured results with pass/warn/fail and fix instructions. The verb 'check' and resource 'setup readiness' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'check_token_status' or 'diagnose_pixel_on_site'.

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 usage for verifying setup before proceeding and states it is read-only. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings, such as 'check_token_status' for a subset of checks.

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