mister_tailscale

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

Each action's effect is described (e.g., setup installs/configures and returns auth URL, status shows state/IP). With no annotations, the description carries the burden well, though it omits potential side effects like connection disruption on stop.

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 three sentences: first states purpose, second lists actions with brief explanations, third adds context. No wasted words, and the most important information is 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 no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what each action does, including return values for setup and status. The tool's scope is well-defined and fits within the sibling set.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds value by explaining the 'setup' action returns an auth URL and that 'hostname' is only used with 'setup'. This supplements the schema.

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 manages Tailscale VPN on MiSTer-FPGA and lists the four actions (setup, status, start, stop) with specific behaviors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all unrelated to VPN management.

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 managing Tailscale VPN, and given no other sibling tool deals with Tailscale, it's clear when to use it. However, it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or alternatives.

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