orchestrator_setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious state context (no config loaded, other tools unavailable), which is genuinely useful beyond the structured fields, though it does not describe the nature of the returned guidance.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler; the operative action is front-loaded and the reason follows after the colon. Slightly dense phrasing, but every clause earns its place.

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 the description need not explain return values. For a zero-parameter, read-only setup tool, the description supplies the essential situational context an agent needs to decide to call it. Only minor detail about the response's nature is absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter to misinterpret, and the description need not compensate for any schema gap.

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 states a specific action (returns guidance on how to finish orchestrator setup) and names the resource. It is clear this is a setup/onboarding tool that reports instructions rather than performing configuration, though the verb 'Say' is slightly informal. No siblings exist, so differentiation is moot.

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?

It states the precise condition under which this tool matters: the server started without a config and therefore none of the other tools exist yet. That implicitly tells the agent to call this when tools are missing. There is no explicit 'use this when X, not Y' phrasing, but with no sibling tools there is nothing to disambiguate against.

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