Checklist de configuração

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with both: it frames the tool as an inspection that reports pending items and the next step for each. Beyond the annotations, it also says what the output itemizes and that it grades pending work, which is real added value even though authentication requirements and any side effects of the check are not discussed.

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 packs the purpose, the returned contents, and the usage condition into two sentences, and the purpose comes first. The long parenthetical category list is dense but each item tells the agent what the checklist will report, so the detail earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to describe the return value, and it does: a per-item checklist plus the next step for pending items. For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool this is nearly complete; the only omission is whether the check contacts the remote service or runs locally, a minor detail for an openWorldHint read.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline score of 4 applies.

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 and object (check the aspa-mcp setup) and then lists exactly what the returned checklist covers: service, login, config files, company, tone, signature, knowledge, Slack, notifications, transcription. That enumeration sets it apart from action-oriented siblings such as aspa_login, aspa_configure_slack, or aspa_update_settings without needing the schema.

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 gives explicit triggers: the user wants to configure aspa-mcp, or something is not working. It does not name an alternative tool for narrower diagnostics (for example, aspa_test_notifications for notification-only checks), so a small amount of routing remains implicit.

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