setup_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool 'Returns configuration state only — never secret values,' a critical behavioral trait for a status-checking tool, ensuring the agent knows it is safe and read-only.

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 consists of three concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose. Every sentence adds unique value without 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?

Given the output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description provides sufficient context: what it returns, how to use it, and security guidance. It is complete for a simple status-check tool.

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 no parameters (schema coverage 100% trivially). The description does not add parameter-specific detail (none needed), but it clarifies the tool's purpose, which helps an agent understand no input is required. Given the baseline of 4 for zero parameters, this is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Report' and specifies the resource: 'which paperboy features are configured and what's missing.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with papers, collections, or queue management.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to guide the user through finishing setup.' Also provides clear guidance on what not to do: 'Credentials themselves must be entered by running 'paperboy setup' in a terminal, never pasted into the chat.'

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