onboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a multi-step workflow tool ('guides the user through...'), supports incremental progression ('call multiple times'), and operates within Claude Code context. It could improve by mentioning authentication requirements or rate limits, but covers core behavior adequately.

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?

Perfectly front-loaded with core purpose in first sentence, followed by scope details and usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place: first establishes purpose, second defines scope, third provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 4-parameter workflow tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about the multi-step nature and progression logic. It could be more complete by mentioning expected outputs or error conditions, but covers the workflow purpose and usage pattern adequately given the complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context about the multi-step nature and progression logic that informs parameter usage, particularly the action parameter's role in workflow navigation. However, it doesn't provide specific examples or edge cases for parameter combinations.

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 purpose: 'Start or continue the SecureCode onboarding' with specific verbs ('guides', 'call') and resources (signup, .env import, API key creation, MCP configuration, SDK setup). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on onboarding workflow rather than secret management or status checks.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this tool multiple times to progress through the steps' and the action parameter enum defines specific usage scenarios (start, configure-auto, configure-manual, etc.). The description clearly indicates this is for onboarding workflow progression versus other tools that handle discrete operations.

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