willys_setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that no session is required and specifies that the tool outputs exact steps with full file paths when configuration is incomplete. The verb 'kontrollera' implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies anything, leaving a minor gap. Overall, it offers useful behavioral context beyond the minimal schema.

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 three concise sentences in Swedish, each serving a purpose: the first states the main action and deliverable, the second gives a usage condition and authentication requirement, and the third points to documentation. There is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately front-loaded and 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?

For a zero-parameter setup-check tool, the description explains what happens when something is missing (exact steps and file path) but does not describe the output when the server is already configured. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the success case or overall return format. The pointer to read_doc with help/setup.md partially compensates, but the gap keeps it from being fully complete.

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 has zero parameters, so per the guidelines the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none to explain, and no additional semantics are 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Kontrollera om servern är konfigurerad på den här datorn' (check if the server is configured on this computer) and provides exact steps if something is missing. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying when to run it ('om willys_login svarar SETUP_REQUIRED'), making its unique role clear.

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 explicitly says to run this tool first when willys_login responds with SETUP_REQUIRED, which is a concrete usage trigger. It also notes that no session is required, setting expectations for authentication. It does not explicitly compare to sibling setup_init, but the reference to read_doc with help/setup.md guides the user to further documentation, providing adequate context.

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