get_vaultpilot_config_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing it as safe and idempotent. The description adds significant value by detailing what files are read (~/.vaultpilot-mcp/config.json + env vars), that no RPC calls are made, and how agents should handle the setupHints and demoMode fields. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 verbose but well-structured with clear sections (AGENT BEHAVIOR for setupHints, AGENT BEHAVIOR for demoMode). It front-loads the core purpose but includes many details that are necessary for agent guidance. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence earns its place.

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 (no output schema, multiple return fields), the description is remarkably complete. It explains what fields are returned, how to interpret setupHints and demoMode, and even provides agent behavior instructions. The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) further enhance completeness. No gaps remain.

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, so the baseline is 4 per the guidelines. The description does not need to add parameter meaning but compensates by thoroughly describing the output structure, which aids in understanding the tool's use.

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 it is a read-only tool that reports the server's local config status without revealing secrets. It specifies the exact fields returned (config path, server version, RPC source classification, API key presence, Ledger account counts, WC session-topic suffix, preflight skill state, setupHints, demoMode). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ledger_status and get_demo_wallet, which focus on different aspects.

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 usage scenarios: 'Use this when the user asks 'is my config set up correctly' or 'why is my Solana balance read failing' before suggesting they re-run setup or paste keys.' It also explains the tool's scope (pure local I/O, no network calls). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, missing some depth.

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