check_setup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and output. It only says 'verify' without stating whether the tool is read-only, what happens on failure, or what response it returns. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Two short sentences convey purpose and usage with no filler. The key information is front-loaded.

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 description explains what the tool checks and when to run it, but lacks details about the result/return value, failure behavior, or if any setup actions are performed. Given no output schema, these details would typically be necessary.

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 input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description's omission of parameter details is appropriate, and the baseline for zero params is met.

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 function ('Verify the machine is ready to record a demo') and lists specific resources checked (native cursor helper, ffmpeg, Chrome, say voices). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chrome_launch or start_recording, as it's a pre-flight check.

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 instruction 'Run this first in a new session' provides explicit timing and context for use. While it doesn't mention alternatives, none exist among siblings for this verification task, so the guidance is sufficient.

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