setup_guide

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's read-only nature, its prioritized list output, and the optional argument behavior. It does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid provider) but is otherwise transparent about what the tool does and returns.

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 well-structured: a concise one-sentence summary, followed by a paragraph detailing behavior, a use case sentence, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The most critical information is front-loaded, and the format is easy to parse.

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 existence of an output schema (covering return structure), the description adequately covers all necessary context: purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, and behavioral modes. There are no missing pieces for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by clearly explaining the 'provider' parameter: 'Specific provider key to get instructions for (optional). Omit to see all unconfigured providers.' This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Get setup instructions for adding free model providers') and distinguishes itself from siblings like configure_key and list_providers by focusing on setup instructions. It also explains the two behavioral modes (with/without provider argument), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit use context ('help your user expand their model coverage') and explains the two invocation modes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, though sibling tools imply the boundaries. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusionary language.

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