welcome

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it states the tool is unconditionally available even in an incomplete configuration, and it imposes a security constraint ('Never pass credentials through chat') that an agent would otherwise not know.

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 sentences, no filler, with the availability guarantee and the credential warning front-loaded after the purpose clause. Slightly compressed phrasing in the first sentence ('Check readiness and learn how to start or resume') costs it a point, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description never indicates what 'readiness' actually returns (a status flag, a checklist, a next-step pointer), which is the main thing an agent needs before calling it. Availability and security are covered; the result shape is not.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level detail is missing or 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 gives a verb pair ('Check readiness and learn how to start or resume') but the resource is left implicit — readiness of what, and how this differs from sibling tools like setup_status or project_context. 'Welcome' plus 'start or resume' hints at onboarding, but an agent cannot precisely tell what this tool does versus several siblings without probing.

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?

'Always available, including when research configuration is incomplete' gives one genuine usage condition — call it even when setup is broken. However, it names no alternatives and no exclusions, so the agent gets no routing guidance relative to setup_status, project_list, or project_context.

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