whodb_platform_setup_status

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it discloses that the tool does not require a valid hosted session (a key auth constraint for agents) and that it surfaces login state, org/project selection, and exact fix commands. It does not mention caching, cost, or whether results go stale, but the added auth context is genuinely useful.

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?

Four tight sentences, with the primary trigger ('first tool in hosted platform mode') front-loaded before the secondary trigger and the session caveat. No filler sentences, though the final sentence largely restates schema content.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description still usefully enumerates what will be reported. With only one optional parameter and full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly complete; the remaining gap is routing guidance among the many overlapping status/doctor/setup siblings.

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% and the nested workspace object is fully documented, including fallback order and discovery tools, so the description can only lightly reinforce it. Its note that workspace targeting applies per-call without changing defaults duplicates what the schema already says, adding no new 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 gives a specific verb+resource (check hosted WhoDB MCP setup) and frames it as a pre-flight status check, which is clearly distinguishable from data-mutation siblings. However, it never differentiates itself from closely overlapping siblings such as whodb_platform_status, whodb_platform_doctor, or whodb_mcp_setup, so an agent must still guess between several look-alike health/setup tools.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: use it first in hosted platform mode, or whenever another platform tool reports login/workspace errors. It also states the precondition that no valid session is required, which is actionable. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name the alternative tools it supersedes.

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