Get Setup Status

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotations by disclosing real behavioral consequences: with writer="agent", AI-writing tools refuse with 409 and the agent must write and persist via the matching store/add tool; with writer="maestro", the user's ai_key is required. It also states that the AI key, writer, and default resume design are app-set and never appear as a next step, preventing a whole class of wasted calls.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a single dense sentence enumerating returns with parenthetical explanations. Every clause carries information, but the nested parentheses and run-on structure make it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the full return contract, and it does: it names and explains ai_key, writer, demo_bases, next_step (with its {step, tool_set, says} shape and null case), tool_sets, and steps. It also explains the downstream 409 behavior an agent will hit, which is exactly the context needed for a zero-param orientation tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its space on return-value semantics (writer enum meanings, demo_bases being slugs of shipped demos, next_step being null when nothing remains), which is useful but does not add anything about parameters since there are none.

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+resource ('where this user's Maestro setup stands') and adds the audience/trigger ('for an agent starting fresh'). The enumerated return fields (ai_key, writer, next_step, tool_sets, steps) make it clearly distinct from siblings like run_health_check or get_career_context.

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 phrase 'for an agent starting fresh' plus the next_step field implicitly tells the caller this is the orientation call before doing setup work. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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