show_api_key_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that only the prefix is shown, which is a notable behavioral limitation. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a status message) or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and then add the behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place, with no verbosity or redundancy. It is a model of concise, effective writing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and empty schema, the description covers the main action but omits the return format, which is critical because there is no output schema to provide that information. It does not explain what the status output looks like, making the description less complete than it could be for a debugging tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters, which is correct for this case.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking whether the Passport Key is configured. The verb 'check' and the resource 'Passport Key' are specific, and the mention of showing only the prefix distinguishes it from tools like set_api_key that manage the key. This fully clarifies what the tool does.

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 is for debugging by stating 'for debugging,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_api_key or get_merchant_hints. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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