kickbacks_config

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 appropriately states that the tool is safe and never exposes secrets, adding useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or other operational details.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the primary purpose and the second adds a safety note. It is well-structured, front-loaded with key information, and contains no superfluous content.

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 simple nature of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient information about its function and safety. It does not explain how output differs from the sibling tool kickbacks_status, but for a config check, it is largely complete.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details as there are none. It meets the baseline expectation for parameter-less tools.

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 Kickbacks.ai configuration status, including whether the API key is set and providing setup instructions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kickbacks_status, though the verb 'Check' and resource 'configuration status' are specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as kickbacks_set_enabled for updates or kickbacks_status for overall status. It only mentions safety ('Safe to call') but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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