Get Provider Config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies read-only, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything, does not require authentication, or what happens if no configuration exists. For a getter, this is minimal but not fully transparent.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and the content. There is no wasted language. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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?

For a simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It tells what the tool returns but does not mention any prerequisites, error conditions, or the exact structure of the response. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, an agent might benefit from more detail on the return shape or potential side effects, but the simplicity of the tool mitigates the gap.

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 needs to add nothing about parameters. However, it does add meaning by specifying what the returned config includes ('preference order and per-provider settings'), which is more than just 'get config'. Since schema coverage is trivially 100% and there are no params, the baseline is 4, and the description adds a bit of useful detail.

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 specific action ('Get') on a specific resource ('provider config') and details what it returns ('preference order and per-provider settings'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nanites_setProviderPreferenceOrder, which is a setter, and other config-related tools. It is not a tautology.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or mention related tools like nanites_setProviderPreferenceOrder. The agent is left to infer that this is the getter counterpart to the setter, but no explicit routing is provided.

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