asc_setup_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses what is checked (credentials, connection, tier) and that it returns fixes. It implies a read-only, diagnostic behavior, though it doesn't explicitly state it won't modify anything or how sensitive data is handled.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the specific checks, the promise of exact fixes, and the trigger condition. No fluff.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, and when to run it. It is complete and self-sufficient.

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 and the schema is empty, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-specific details.

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 specific verbs ('diagnose', 'checks') and names concrete resources (.p8 key, Key ID, Issuer ID, live connection, license tier). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on setup validation and returning fixes.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Run this first if something isn't working,' providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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