Account providers status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'No model calls' and the fact that it checks installation/login state, which is not redundant with annotations. It also implies a read-only status check without additional risk disclosure, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value: what it lists, when it applies, and what it does not do. Efficient and well-structured.

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 status tool with one optional boolean and no output schema, the description fully explains the output (which CLIs, login status, login command) and its usage context. An agent has everything needed 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?

The only parameter, 'refresh', is fully described in the schema with its default and meaning. The description does not need to add parameter details since schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of caching is only implied via the parameter, not the main text.

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 lists which AI CLIs are installed and logged in, plus the login command for each. It names specific CLIs, distinguishing it from generic status or model tools. The phrase 'No model calls' further clarifies its scope.

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 says 'Account providers are used before per-token APIs,' implying when to check account status. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for not using this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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