get_scout_setup_instructions

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

No annotations are provided. The description implies a read-only operation by retrieving instructions, with no mention of side effects or destructive actions. It could benefit from explicitly stating it does not modify any state, but the behavior is transparent enough for an instruction-gathering tool.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage instruction, supported frameworks list, and parameter details. It is concise without unnecessary information. The supported frameworks list adds some length but is relevant.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It mentions 'Complete setup instructions including installation, configuration, and examples.' Overall, it provides sufficient context for the tool's function and usage.

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 input schema has a single 'framework' parameter with 0% coverage (no description). The description compensates by listing supported frameworks and giving an example ('fastapi', 'django', 'celery'), adding context that the schema lacks. It could be improved by providing a full list of accepted values.

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 provides step-by-step setup instructions for Scout APM in a framework. It distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve app data, not configuration instructions. The verb 'Get' and resource 'setup instructions' are specific.

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 advises 'Always use this tool first when asked to setup/instrument/configure Scout APM in an application.' It provides a list of supported frameworks, aiding tool selection. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, the guidance is clear for its intended use case.

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