CGM onboarding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond this by specifying 'non-secret data only, stored at ~/.delx-wellness/profile.json,' giving concrete behavioral detail about data handling. The 'Read-only' statement is fully consistent with annotations — no contradiction.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is largely efficient. Minor redundancy: the standalone 'Read-only.' fragment repeats the readOnlyHint annotation, and the final clause is a slight run-on. No sentence is wasted, but it could be tightened.

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 simple read-only tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it returns, why it's used, data storage location, and the safety profile. The '11-question onboarding flow' hints at the return structure, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. Reasonably complete for its complexity.

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% with both parameters (locale, privacy_mode) fully documented via enums and descriptions. The description adds marginal value by noting 'non-secret data only,' which loosely contextualizes privacy_mode, but the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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: 'Returns the 11-question onboarding flow for the shared Delx Wellness profile.' The specificity (11 questions, shared profile) makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like cgm_quickstart, cgm_profile_get, and cgm_agent_manifest without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 gives a clear, actionable directive: 'The agent should ask these questions next so wellness-cgm-mcp... can personalize responses.' This tells the agent when and why to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions among the 18 siblings, but the context is concrete and actionable.

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