get_setup_instructions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds useful context about the step-by-step guidance and the prerequisite to examine the project and ask permission, but this aligns with the annotations and doesn't reveal any unexpected behavior.

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 three well-structured sentences: purpose, usage conditions, and an important note. Every sentence serves a purpose, with zero wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly states what the tool returns ('step-by-step guidance') and the key behavioral requirement (examine project, ask permission). Annotations cover safety, and the sibling context shows this is a distinct setup help tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids parameter discussion and focuses on usage context, which is sufficient given no input values 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 clearly states 'Get instructions for setting up or updating the MCP Bridge plugin in a Tauri project', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like driver_session by listing explicit scenarios (connection failure, plugin detection, user request).

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 enumerates three conditions under which the tool should be called: driver_session failure, detecting outdated/missing plugin, or user asking about setup. It also notes that the returned instructions require the agent to examine the project and ask permission before changing anything.

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