Guided setup

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond the annotations: it explains the demo mode makes no network calls, while live modes 'probe remote endpoints and can be slow on a captive-portal network.' It also reveals security handling ('Never asks for a secret in conversation') and idempotency ('Safe to run repeatedly'). These are valuable details not covered by readOnlyHint or openWorldHint.

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 efficiently organized into three short paragraphs: what it does, behavioral modes, and safety/repeatability. Every sentence adds value, and the opening 'First-run hand-holding' immediately conveys the purpose. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers all necessary aspects for a setup tool: purpose, usage modes, network behavior, security, and repeatability. With a schema, annotations, and output schema present, there are no significant gaps. It even explains where credentials live in the Tenable and AWS UIs, which is highly contextual and aids the agent.

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 describes `source` as 'Which source to check: demo | tenable | aws | all,' but the description adds significant meaning by explaining the behavioral implications of each value (e.g., 'demo' makes no network calls, 'tenable'/'aws'/'all' test live connectivity and may be slow). This goes well beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'First-run hand-holding. Checks what is configured, tests connections, and gives the exact next step for anything missing.' It also differentiates itself from siblings by focusing on setup guidance and credential locations, making it distinct from tools like chokepoint_preflight or chokepoint_verify.

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?

It provides clear context: 'First-run hand-holding' implies use during initial setup, and 'run it again after each fix until everything you need says READY' specifies when to re-run. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it lacks the explicit 'vs alternatives' guidance seen in top-tier examples.

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