Setup Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: keys are reported as set/missing and 'never values', and it works without a config file, both of which the agent could not infer from the 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?

Front-loads the purpose and separates trigger ('Use when:') from output shape, so it scans well. The trailing 'Returns:' line largely restates the output schema, which is the only mild redundancy.

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 spell out return values; the zero-parameter, no-config nature is disclosed, and the session-start usage guidance covers the operational context an agent needs. Nothing required to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-level to clarify or clarify beyond the empty schema, and the description does not waste space on nonexistent inputs.

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 ('Report') and resource ('AppFactory setup state per service') and enumerates exactly what is reported: enabled, keys set/missing, missing tools with install commands, approvals mode. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like setup_credentials, setup_approvals, and config_doctor, which each mutate a narrower slice of state.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'first call of every session, and after any setup change', which is actionable context. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, but the precondition ('Works with no config file') usefully signals it is safe as a cold-start probe.

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