get_vaultpilot_config_status

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

The description matches annotations (readOnlyHint=true) by stating 'READ-ONLY' and 'Pure local I/O — reads ~/.vaultpilot-mcp/config.json + process.env, no RPC calls, no network.' It adds significant behavioral details about the returned fields (e.g., setupHints, demoMode) beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 (multiple paragraphs) but well-structured: it starts with a summary, then enumerates outputs, then gives usage and agent instructions. While every sentence adds value, it could be more concise. The front-loaded 'READ-ONLY' tag and initial summary help, but the length reduces clarity for quick scanning.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains every returned field (e.g., config file path, RPC source classification, setupHints array, demoMode). It covers edge cases (rate-limit nudges, demo-mode hints) and provides actionable guidance for agents. The tool's low complexity (0 params) is fully addressed.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to clarify parameter meaning. By the scoring reference, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead.

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 server-side configuration status. It enumerates specific outputs (e.g., config file path, per-chain RPC source, API key presence, etc.) and explicitly states when to use it: when the user asks about config setup or troubleshooting. It distinguishes from related tools like `get_demo_wallet` and `get_solana_setup_status` by covering a broader scope.

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 guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this when the user asks...') and includes agent behavior for interpreting results (setupHints, demoMode). It also references a sibling (`suspectedPoisoning`) to clarify which parts are actionable. However, it does not explicitly list when NOT to use the tool or alternatives beyond the implicit context.

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