start_setup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It describes detection, discovery, validation, and report generation, which imply a read-only operation, but 'onboarding' and 'setup' could suggest configuration changes. The description does not explicitly state whether calling this tool modifies state, requires prerequisites (e.g., valid token), or fails when no orgs are accessible. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 two sentences and every phrase adds value. It front-loads the core action and outcome, then gives usage guidance and the optional parameter. No redundant or filler content.

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 multi-step setup tool with no output schema, the description gives a good outline but remains incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes 'READY FOR USE,' whether the tool sets an active organization or writes configuration, what happens if the token is invalid, or if no organizations are accessible. These details matter for an agent deciding to invoke it under uncertainty.

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 schema description for 'organization' is complete ('Organization NAME to use when several are accessible (optional).'), and coverage is 100%. The tool description adds minimal context by saying 'to choose among multiple orgs,' which essentially restates the schema. No extra syntax, constraints, or edge-case behavior is provided, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Run first-run onboarding,' which clearly states a distinct action. It lists specific steps (auto-detect Mist region, discover organizations and sites, run validation) and an output ('READY FOR USE report'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling report/data tools like generate_inventory_report or get_sites.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this when the user is setting up or asks to get started.' This is clear contextual guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., set_active_org for org selection without setup), so it misses the full guidance given in the highest-caliber examples.

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