get_setup_instructions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds post-call behavioral guidance (examine project, ask permission), which is valuable but not about the tool's own behavior. No contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose stated first, then usage conditions, then important behavioral note. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, read-only). The description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and post-call actions. While no output schema exists, it mentions 'step-by-step guidance,' which is adequate. Could specify format, but overall complete.

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?

Input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), so no parameter info is needed. The description adds no param details, but that's acceptable as baseline 4.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get instructions for setting up or updating the MCP Bridge plugin in a Tauri project.' It uses specific verb+resource and lists explicit use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like driver_session or ipc_*.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidelines: when driver_session fails, plugin is missing/outdated, or user asks. It also tells the agent to examine the project and ask permission before making changes, offering clear context and alternatives.

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