setup

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

Annotations indicate the tool is neither read-only nor destructive. The description confirms it configures preferences, implying mutation. However, it does not disclose specific side effects (e.g., whether existing settings are overwritten, if reset is required first) or the interactive nature when no 'set' parameter is provided.

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 a single concise sentence, efficiently conveying the core purpose. No redundant information is present, though it could benefit from listing common use cases or mentioning the two parameters.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks information about return values, potential interactivity, and any required prior setup, leaving some contextual gaps.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional guidance beyond the schema, missing an opportunity to explain the 'set' format or interaction between 'reset' and 'set'. Baseline 3 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 action ('Run OSS Autopilot setup') and the resource ('preferences like languages, interests, and contribution goals'). It effectively communicates the tool's purpose among siblings such as 'check-setup' and 'config', though it does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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 provides a general purpose but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check-setup' or 'config'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, which limits the agent's ability to make a well-contextualized choice.

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