Config

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: cache_clear 'wipes embeddings' (destructive-ish), setup_skip 'local mode', setup_reset 'reset to local', setup_complete 're-resolve from host config'. This discloses state-changing behavior and setup flow. It doesn't contradict annotations; destructiveHint=false is consistent with cache_clear being a cache wipe rather than permanent data destruction. The description adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 dense but well-structured: a one-sentence overview followed by a parenthetical action list. It front-loads the purpose and packs a lot of information into a compact form. The action list is a bit long but necessary for a multi-action tool. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more scannable with line breaks.

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, 8 actions, output schema present), the description covers the main actions and their effects. It doesn't explain 'force' or 'repo_root', and doesn't describe return values, but the output schema exists. The setup flow is described well enough for an agent to invoke actions. Minor gaps remain, but overall it's fairly complete for a config 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'action' parameter by listing valid actions and their meanings. It also explains 'key' (e.g., log_level) and 'value' in the set action. However, it doesn't explain 'force' or 'repo_root' parameters at all. With 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description covers only some parameters, leaving gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate because it adds some meaning but not complete coverage.

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: server configuration, status, and model-cell setup. It enumerates specific actions (status, set, cache_clear, setup_status, setup_start, setup_skip, setup_reset, setup_complete), which distinguishes it from siblings like graph, query, review, and security. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 context for when to use this tool: for server configuration, status, and model-cell setup. It lists the actions and their purposes, which implies when to use each. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the action list gives clear usage guidance. The mention of 'Use help tool for full docs' is a minor pointer.

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