setup_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only status check but does not explicitly confirm that it makes no changes, nor does it describe what happens if authentication is missing or what the output structure is. While the name and context suggest safety, the description itself lacks explicit behavioral details.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a clear usage directive. Every word 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?

Given low complexity (0 params, no output schema) and clear sibling tools, the description adequately explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, it could have elaborated on the expected output or the nature of the status check, but for a simple tool this is sufficient.

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 has 0 parameters, and the schema accurately reflects this (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter details. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'figmanage authentication status', and adds the secondary purpose of 'get setup instructions'. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like setup_extract_cookies and setup_select_account, which handle different aspects of the setup process.

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 explicitly provides a usage rule: 'Always call this before using any other tool.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool and establishes a clear ordering prerequisite, going beyond implied guidance.

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