sc_dev-setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a configuration action that may modify the system, but it does not state side effects, required permissions, or reversibility. This is a significant transparency gap for a setup tool.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is slightly redundant: 'Development environment setup' and 'Configure complete dev environment' essentially restate the same idea. It earns a middle score because it is not verbose but also not maximally efficient in message.

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 complexity (4 parameters, enums, nested objects) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what the flags mean, how personas affect behavior, or what the 'evidence' object is for, making it incomplete for effective selection and invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter insights, and the schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Command-specific flags', 'Persona to use for this command'), so no extra meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 clear action ('Configure') and resource ('complete dev environment'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sc_build or sc_test. However, 'complete dev environment' is somewhat vague and could mean many things, preventing a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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