qq_status

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that probe=true checks upstream credentials and account status, which is beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded)Skip

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 tool is simple: one optional boolean parameter confirmed by the input schema trick, an output schema exists, and annotations declare read-only safety. The description covers the main behavioral nuance, leaving little that an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, but the description meaningfully explains the only parameter: 'probe=true checks upstream credentials and account status.' This adds value beyond the bare boolean field name and default value.

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 verb-resource pair: 'Show provider capabilities/scopes.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qq_send or qq_forget, which clearly perform actions, though it is less explicit about how it differs from qq_targets and qq_context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of its siblings. The probe=true note explains one behavioral aspect, but does not help an agent decide between qq_status and qq_targets/qq_context.

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