setup_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explicitly states the tool does not read browser credentials or change settings, and mentions a retry behavior for admin access detection. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey, helping the agent understand side-effect boundaries.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second gives usage timing, and the third clarifies limitations. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler language.

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 parameterless tool with a readOnly hint, an output schema, and three clear usage triggers, the description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use it, and what it avoids doing. The existence of an output schema means detailed return values do not need to be spelled out in the description.

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 zero parameters and the schema fully covers this by defining an empty properties object. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, the description need not explain parameters. It instead focuses on purpose and behavior, which 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check live authentication, retry admin access detection, and get structured next actions.' This clearly identifies the tool as a diagnostic/status tool and differentiates it from siblings like setup_extract_cookies or setup_save_pat, which perform credential operations rather than status checks.

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 usage triggers are given: 'Use before setup, after an authentication error, or when expected tools are missing.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly list sibling alternatives, but the closing disclaimer about not reading credentials or changing settings implies when other tools would be appropriate.

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