setup_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that secret values are never shown and that no config file is required, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-mutating, nor does it describe permissions or side effects. This is a notable gap without annotations.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the output fields, the second gives the imperative usage note. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in full, and it still summarizes the key outputs. For a zero-parameter tool it covers enough to invoke correctly, though the lack of an explicit read-only statement is a minor gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it appropriately stays focused on output and usage.

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 the resource ('setup state per service') and enumerates the exact fields it reports (enabled, keys set/missing, missing tools with install commands, approvals mode, next steps), which differentiates it from siblings like setup_services and config_doctor. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'Get', but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Provides a direct usage instruction: 'Call this first' and clarifies that no config file is needed. It does not name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it stops short of the highest level.

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