gen_get_provider_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the API key value is not exposed, which is a key safety behavior. It also indicates this is a read operation. However, it does not describe the exact return fields or any side effects, though the output schema may cover return format.

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 compact: two sentences plus a KB link and an example. Every element adds value; no 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?

For a simple read tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and safety constraint, and points to KB for details. It lacks explicit usage guidance vs siblings but that's minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example using include_paths=True, implying that the parameter controls whether paths are included, but does not explicitly define 'paths'. This adds some meaning beyond the raw 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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('Tripo auth/config state'), and an explicit constraint ('without exposing the API key value'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gen_save_provider_config (which writes) and gen_list_providers (which lists providers).

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 implies usage for reading config state but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides a KB reference and an example, but no explicit routing guidance.

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