setup_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-open-world, and the description adds genuinely non-structured context: it is always callable even with incomplete config, and carries a security constraint ('Never pass credentials through chat'). That safety note is valuable behavioral guidance beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the availability guarantee and security constraint each earn their place. The clipped, fragmentary phrasing is slightly harder to parse than a complete sentence would be.

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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers availability and a security caveat but never hints at what readiness information is returned or what a caller should do with it. Adequate, but a gap remains since no output schema exists to fill it.

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 schema coverage is vacuously complete and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 verb 'Check' is present and the object is implied ('readiness'), so an agent can infer this reports setup/configuration status. However, 'readiness' is undefined, and 'learn how to start or resume' muddies whether this returns state, instructions, or both. No sibling (e.g., welcome) is named to differentiate it.

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?

It states a real availability condition ('Always available, including when research configuration is incomplete'), which is useful context for a setup flow. But it names no alternative and gives no criteria for choosing this over siblings like welcome or project_list.

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