Probe Peers

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, open-world safety profile. The description adds value by revealing that the tool makes network calls to provider APIs, uses API keys, selects a model, and probes reachability—behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 entire definition is one dense, front-loaded sentence that begins with the primary verb and packs three related behaviors without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 description is adequate for deciding to invoke the tool and understanding its general effect, but with no output schema it does not say what the tool returns or how providers/keys are identified in the output. A brief mention of the result shape or error behavior would complete the picture.

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 for the undocumented parameters, but it never explains caller or response_format. 'Current API keys' hints at credentials but does not map to the caller enum, and the JSON/markdown response switch is unmentioned.

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 names a specific action ('Query official provider APIs'), a resource ('available models for the current API keys'), and two follow-up outcomes (select highest-capability model, verify reachability). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as ask_peers.

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?

It provides clear context for when to call it: when an agent needs to inventory models for the current API keys or confirm provider reachability. It does not state exclusions or explicitly name an alternative like ask_peers, so it misses the full when-vs-alternatives guidance.

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