Claude API status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses a key security behavior: the key value is never shown, only its presence. It also states the content (model and setup method). It does not mention side effects, but this is a read-only status tool, and the disclosed behavior is the most important one.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately adds the critical privacy guarantee. The bilingual formatting is compact and each part 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?

For a simple status-check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough detail: it lists the key informational fields (key presence, model, configuration method) and the privacy constraint. It could mention the exact return format, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 100%: the single parameter 'lang' is fully documented in the schema with enum values, default, and bilingual description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, 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 states a clear verb ('report') and resource ('optional Claude API path'), and specifies exactly what it covers: key presence (never value), model, and configuration method. This differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_text_with_claude or estimate_tokens, which assume the API is available.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to check whether Claude API integration is available/configured) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. Given the large sibling set, explicit routing hints would strengthen it, though the purpose is self-evident for a status check.

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