Read one CLI's permitted status and options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-effect context: it does not launch a CLI or check installation/login, and it communicates that excluded providers cannot be started. This goes beyond the structured hints and clarifies what the tool does not trigger.

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 sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds boundary behaviors without redundancy or filler.

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 tool has only one required parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering its read-only/idempotent nature. The description supplements the structured fields with non-action clarification and the exclusion consequence, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage; the single required parameter 'provider' is already described as 'Provider whose permitted status and options to return.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Read one provider's permitted status and supported options.' The sibling tools are all lifecycle actions (start_agent, wait_agent, cancel_agent), so the read-only nature of this tool is immediately distinguishable. The title 'Read one CLI's permitted status and options' reinforces the same purpose.

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 states explicitly what the tool does not do ('Does not launch a CLI or check installation/login'), which guides an agent away from using it for launching or environment verification. The final sentence 'Excluded providers cannot be started' implies that this tool returns exclusion status relevant to starting a provider, giving context for when to call it before start_agent. However, it doesn't name the sibling or state a direct condition like 'use this before start_agent', so it stops short of the most explicit guidance.

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