art.provider.get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get detailed metadata' reasonably implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior, permission requirements, or error behavior for unknown provider IDs.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and there is no repetition of the tool name or parameter schema.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter, so the description is roughly adequate for selecting and invoking it. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what 'detailed metadata' contains, leaving the agent without a clear expectation of the return payload.

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%, and the single required parameter provider_id is documented in the schema as 'Provider ID'. The description adds little beyond the schema, but given the high schema coverage, this meets the baseline without requiring additional compensation.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get detailed metadata for a specific provider') and signals that the operation is scoped to one provider rather than a list. It is clear enough to distinguish from provider.list, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar read-style siblings like provider.capabilities or provider.health.

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 a specific provider' implies the tool is used when a particular provider_id is already known, which gives useful context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tools for cases like listing all providers or checking health.

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