eph_setup

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns workflow, rules, and topics, implying a read-only setup operation. While it does not detail exact return format or side effects, the context suggests no destructive actions. The transparency is good but could be enhanced by stating it is non-destructive.

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?

The description is extremely concise: three short sentences plus a bullet list. It uses formatting (bold, dashes) to highlight key points. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential instructions, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given that the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains its role as a mandatory first step, what it returns, and how to proceed. It covers the entire context needed for an agent to use this tool correctly within the workflow.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered trivially (100%). The description confirms this implicitly by not referencing any parameters. Since no parameter info is needed, the description adds value by clarifying the no-argument nature implicitly through its focus on the single call.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns the mandatory workflow, critical rules, and available topics.' It uses strong language like 'CALL THIS FIRST' and 'step 1 of every EPH task,' making the role unmistakable and differentiating it from siblings that are listed as subsequent steps.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'CALL THIS FIRST — before writing any code or referencing any variable. No exceptions.' It also tells what to do after calling this tool, listing specific sibling tools with their purposes, effectively guiding the agent on the correct workflow order.

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