setup

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint (false), idempotentHint (true), and destructiveHint (false). The description adds context that it uses a 'secure local page' and instructs not to ask for the key in chat — this informs the agent that the tool will present a UI flow and that credentials should not be transmitted via chat. This is additional useful behavioral context beyond annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and resource, the second delivers a critical usage constraint. Every word earns its place; it is compact and immediately actionable.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, how it behaves (local page, secure), and provides the key usage constraint (never ask for the key in chat). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the description need not explain any parameter details. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not attempt to describe parameters it doesn't have.

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 states a specific verb ('Configure') and resource ('Rapid7 credentials'), and clarifies the method ('via a secure local page'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings, which are all about workflows, jobs, artifacts, and snippets — none relate to credential setup. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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 gives an explicit usage rule: 'Never ask for the key in chat.' This tells the agent to avoid requesting the credential in conversation and instead use this tool. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, but given the sibling set, there is no competing credentials tool, so the intent is clear. It also implies the tool is the safe way to obtain credentials.

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