setup_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it does so well: declares read-only, side-effect-free behavior, explains the verify_freecad_boot side effect (boots FreeCAD once, time-boxed, purely to read version), and warns to leave it False unless the user doubts the install runs.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when-to-call, behavioral note, return shape), but the return-shape enumeration is dense and long. Still, every sentence earns its place for a diagnostic tool whose output contract matters.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully documents the return shape including nested solver/family structures and the gating field (families[*].any_available), plus the prepared_case_only nuance with the SU2/cfd issue reference. Complete enough to call and interpret correctly.

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% and the single parameter verify_freecad_boot has no schema description, so the description must compensate — and it does, defining the default (False), the exact side effect, and the condition under which to enable it.

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+resource — 'machine-readable form of ankusdrive doctor' that resolves FreeCAD and solver families and reports found/missing per item. This is clearly distinguished from siblings like ping, version, or solve_capabilities.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this when the user asks to set up, diagnose, or finish installing AnkusDrive' and describes the follow-up workflow (walk through fix/install_hint per platform). Provides clear when-to-use context with no ambiguity.

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