setup_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the no-silent-install policy, the OS-instruction fallback, the bge-m3 auto-pull side effect gated on consent, that a final status plus steps are returned, and the dry-run semantics of consent=false. This is meaningful side-effect and safety disclosure.

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?

A single dense sentence with the outcome front-loaded and the consent branch last. Every clause adds information; only the acronym-heavy phrasing costs a little readability.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, but the description covers the operation's effects, safety constraints, the consent gate, and the return shape (steps + final status). For a one-parameter setup orchestrator, this is close to sufficient.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain the consent=false branch precisely, but does not clarify what consent=true enables beyond the auto-pull already mentioned (e.g. whether it proceeds with the actual tier setup).

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 action (bring up the FULL/semantic tier) and enumerates what it does: returns OS-specific instructions instead of silently installing system ollama, auto-pulls bge-m3, returns steps + final status. The 'FULL-тир (семантика)' framing is jargon, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ollama_ensure/ollama_pull, but the verb+resource is clear.

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?

Gives one useful conditional: consent=false yields plan only, no execution. However, it never states when to choose this orchestration tool over the sibling primitives it wraps (ollama_ensure, ollama_pull, ollama_status), leaving the agent to infer the relationship.

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