Get Setup Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. The description adds value by specifying the content (account-map path and validation state). However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and the name imply.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all necessary information without any extraneous words. It efficiently states the purpose and key details.

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 there are no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations already present, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what information it returns. It specifies the two key pieces of status information (account-map path and validation state), making it complete for a 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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% by default. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. No further improvement needed.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and explicitly names the resource ('finance-reconcile-mcp setup status') with concrete details (account-map path, validation state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions (e.g., setup_suggest_account_map) or list other items (e.g., setup_list_simplefin_accounts).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool. The description implies it's for checking status, but there is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or when to avoid it. The context of sibling tools suggests it's a safe read operation, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidelines.

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