get_scout_setup_instructions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the output is official, tested, and should be followed exactly, and it lists supported frameworks. It does not specify what happens when an unsupported framework is requested, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then structured into supported frameworks, Args, and Returns sections. The explicit Args/Returns headers are slightly redundant given the schema and output schema, but the supported-framework list earns its space by compensating for missing schema descriptions.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the purpose, invocation trigger, full supported-value list, and expected output type. The existing output schema covers return-format detail, so nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by explaining the framework argument, giving concrete examples ('fastapi', 'django', 'celery'), and enumerating the full set of supported values across web, background-job, and database categories.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve step-by-step instructions for instrumenting Scout APM in a framework. It is clearly distinguished from every sibling tool, which are all analytics/data-retrieval tools rather than setup guidance.

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 says 'Always use this tool first when asked to setup/instrument/configure Scout APM in an application' and instructs that official tested configuration should be followed exactly. No alternative setup tool exists among the siblings, so the routing guidance is complete.

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