check_setup

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden: it declares 'Read-only', discloses that it runs in the exact environment the MCP client uses, and describes what the output contains ('what is wrong, which environment variable to set and where'). Minor gaps remain (whether a failed check aborts the run, roughly how long it takes), but the behavioral profile is well covered for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the list of checks, followed by the invocation rule. The trailing 'Read-only.' fragment earns its place as a safety signal. No filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the tool inspects, what its output communicates, and when to call it. Slightly incomplete on failure semantics (does it stop at the first broken step?) and expected cost, but sufficient to select and invoke correctly.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless, all-checks-at-once invocation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check this server's configuration') and enumerates the exact checks performed (kubeconfig, context, auth helper, timezone, cluster reachability, read access). This is clearly a diagnostics tool, which is easy to distinguish from the sibling tools that all deal with cronjobs and runs.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Run this first whenever another tool reports a configuration, permission or connection error.' That is a clear, actionable usage condition. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. for logical cronjob failures where config is fine), so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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