agent_quickstart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'returns' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with zero parameters and no annotations, more transparency about its safe usage would be helpful.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose ('Zero-context onboarding playbook'), followed by specifics on what it returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (simple, no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and output content. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context, but the output schema mitigates this gap.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, as there's no gap to compensate for.

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: it provides a 'zero-context onboarding playbook' with 'recommended call sequence, common guardrails, and recovery hints.' This specifies the verb (returns onboarding guidance) and resource (playbook for agents). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_full_agentic_onboarding' or 'get_onboarding_prompt_pack,' which appear related to onboarding.

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 implies usage context ('zero-context onboarding playbook for agents using this MCP server'), suggesting it's for initial setup or orientation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'run_full_agentic_onboarding' or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is present but not detailed enough for explicit decision-making.

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