hyperstack_setup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a non-destructive action (identify and generate), but does not explicitly confirm whether any files are modified or if the tool has side effects. The description is not misleading but could be clearer about the tool's safety profile.

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 sentence that succinctly captures the tool's function. No unnecessary words or details. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

The description lacks information about the tool's output format or return value. There is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the 'MCP configuration patch' looks like or how it is returned. An agent would need additional context to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: to identify the current IDE/CLI environment and generate a tailored MCP configuration patch. It uses specific verbs ('identify', 'generate') and a clear resource ('MCP configuration patch'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tools which are mostly get/list/search tools for other libraries.

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 implies the tool should be used when setting up Hyperstack, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Given that there are no direct sibling tools for setup, the context is sufficient but not explicit. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.

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