get_setup_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden; 'Return...' clearly marks this as a read-only diagnostic operation, and it discloses what is included. It does not mention side effects or error behavior, but the output categories and read-only framing are sufficient for safe selection.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and packs the essential output categories into a compact, scannable list. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema available, the description covers the essential selection information: what the tool does and what data it returns. The only modest gap is explicit differentiation from sibling status/diagnostic tools.

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 baseline is 4; no parameter-level documentation is needed. The description correctly 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 names a concrete action ('Return') and identifies the resource ('setup status') while enumerating five specific data categories: component versions, stale-build actions, extension path, bridge ports, and connection status. This goes well beyond a tautology and separates it from narrower sibling tools like extension_path.

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 phrase 'for setup/diagnostics' gives a contextual signal of when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name sibling alternatives for diagnostics-related status checks.

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