bpmn_setup_check

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the tool writes nothing and returns plain-language findings — useful safety and output-shape context. It does not say what specific checks are performed, what prerequisite tooling is inspected, or whether it suggests remediation when something is missing.

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 short and front-loaded: the core purpose and the non-mutating guarantee come first, followed by the usage triggers. The line breaks make it slightly fragmentary, but every sentence carries information and none is wasted.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic with no output schema and no annotations, the agent has what it needs to decide to call it and to expect plain-language findings rather than structured data. The only gap is detail on what is actually verified and whether a failure implies a concrete fix.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 states a concrete verb and target: verifying that the machine is able to draw diagrams. 'Writes nothing' further scopes it as a non-mutating preflight check, which distinguishes it from bpmn_build. It stops short of naming the sibling tools explicitly, so it isn't maximally differentiated.

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?

Two clear triggering conditions are given: when a user asks to set up, and when a build fails with a browser error. That is real when-to-use guidance tied to observable situations. There is no explicit 'do not use when' or direct pointer to bpmn_build / bpmn_spec_guide as the next step.

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