Explain Self SDK setup requirements (IConfigStorage, UserIdType, etc.)

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying that it returns 'Detailed explanation with code examples,' which clarifies the output format beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like potential rate limits, authentication needs, or logging details, so it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'Args' and 'Returns' into a single paragraph, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.

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 tool's complexity is low (one parameter, read-only operation) and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value, though it lacks usage context and deeper parameter explanations. With annotations and output schema handling safety and structure, the description adds sufficient value for an explanatory 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by listing the 'topic' parameter and its enum values in the 'Args' section, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain what each topic entails (e.g., differences between 'config-storage' and 'full-setup'), leaving some semantics unclear. With one parameter and partial documentation, it meets the baseline for minimal viability.

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 purpose: 'Explain Self SDK backend setup requirements and configuration.' It specifies the verb 'explain' and the resource 'Self SDK backend setup requirements and configuration,' making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'explain_self_integration' or 'fetch_self_docs,' which might cover overlapping topics, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists possible 'topic' values but doesn't explain scenarios for choosing this over sibling tools such as 'explain_self_integration' or 'fetch_self_docs.' There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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