setup_deck

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions auto-loading labware for chatterbox and star, but is silent on behavior for evo and ot2 backends. It does not state whether the operation is safe (non-destructive), what happens on default backend, or any side effects. Significant gaps remain.

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 brief and front-loads the primary purpose. It lists backends efficiently but could be better structured (e.g., separate parameter explanations). No extraneous content.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and usage context but omits return value, error conditions, and details for all backends. Given the tool's init role, mentioning the auto-loaded labware is helpful, but ignoring tip_rail/plate_rail and not explaining the deck_state relationship leaves gaps in completeness.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It explains 'backend' and 'host' but provides no description for 'tip_rail' and 'plate_rail', which are integers with defaults. These missing explanations leave the agent unable to use the tool correctly, despite the description partially compensating for some parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool initializes the liquid handler and places labware, using a clear verb+resource structure. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it must be called before any liquid handling operations, and enumerates the supported backends.

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 clear guidance: 'Call this before any liquid handling tool.' It also details when specific parameters are needed (host only for ot2). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context makes it obvious that this is a prerequisite action, not an alternative to other tools.

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