Onboarding Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'does not change any file' largely restates readOnlyHint. It does add the shape of the returned ranges, but since an output schema exists that is modest incremental value.

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?

Front-loaded and cleanly segmented into purpose, 'Use when:', and 'Returns:' with no filler. The returns sentence is slightly redundant given the output schema, keeping it just under a 5.

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 one-parameter, read-only guidance tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to invoke it, and that it is safe — nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single step_count parameter is fully documented there (including default 12 and 8-15 range). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return guidance for choosing the onboarding step count') and immediately scopes it as non-mutating ('does not change any file'). No sibling covers anything similar, so the agent can identify it unambiguously.

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 'Use when:' clause gives a clear trigger context (deciding onboarding length with the user) and even adds a default scenario (quiz-style flow with about 5 questions). It stops short of naming when *not* to use it or an alternative tool, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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