mogut_setup_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains what the tool examines, flags the approval prerequisite, and mentions its output. It does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, but 'Checks' plus the caution about approval gives the agent a clear safety picture.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds useful information: what is checked, the approval caveat, and the listed output. There is no filler or repetition.

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 no-argument tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key context: why to call it, what it touches, the approval constraint, and what it returns. It does not include deeper troubleshooting or interaction details, but those are not essential for this tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no hidden parameter burden for the description to explain. The 0-parameter baseline applies; no parameter guidance is missing.

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 names the verb and resources: 'Checks Keychain access, the SQLite database and any credentials' and 'Lists the manual setup links.' It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like mogut_status or mogut_discover_profiles, but its setup-diagnostic purpose is unmistakable.

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 gives an explicit operational condition: 'never used without approval,' which is a useful guardrail for agents. The use case is implied by the tool name and by mentioning manual setup links, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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