Config

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

The description mentions destructive actions like 'cache_clear (wipe embeddings)' and 'setup_reset (clear credentials)', but the annotations set destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, creating a contradiction. The description fails to clarify behavioral traits beyond these actions, such as authentication needs or side effects of setup_start (relay browser setup).

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the general purpose and then lists actions concisely. However, it would benefit from a structured format (e.g., bullet points) for the action list, and the reference to the help tool detracts from self-containment. It is not overly verbose but could be more efficient.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple actions, an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return behavior (though output schema helps), nor does it cover all parameters or provide sufficient detail for each action. The note 'Use help tool for full docs' explicitly acknowledges incompleteness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description compensates only partially. It explains the 'action' parameter by listing values, and mentions 'key' and 'value' for the 'set' action but not for others. Parameters 'force' and 'repo_root' are not described at all, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 is for server configuration, status, and credential setup, listing multiple actions with brief explanations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like config__open_relay, graph, help, etc., by outlining a broad set of configuration-related actions. However, it references the help tool for full docs, slightly reducing self-contained clarity.

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 context for each action (e.g., 'status show state', 'cache_clear wipe embeddings'), which helps an agent decide when to use specific actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity for broader usage decisions.

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