check-pce-credentials-status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that secrets are never revealed and explains the three possible `mode` values plus the hybrid-mode caveat that a user may actually have run as shared. It stops short of explicitly declaring read-only/idempotency or error behavior, but the mode disclosure is meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the mode explanation. The final hybrid-mode sentence is dense and jargon-heavy but earns its place as the only documentation of an undocumented output field.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-less, output-schema-less tool, the description supplies the key missing surface: what `mode` means and how hybrid mode can misattribute the caller. Remaining gaps (read-only confirmation, error cases) are minor.

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?

Zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes further by documenting `mode` semantics (per_user/shared/stdio) that would otherwise be invisible, though that is an output field not present anywhere in the provided schema.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Check which PCE credentials apply to the current user') plus scope ('without revealing secrets'), which cleanly separates it from register-pce-credentials and delete-pce-credentials. An agent can identify it as the read-only credential-status probe without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only 'check ... status' framing and by contrast with the register/delete siblings, but the description never explicitly states when to call this versus those tools or any preconditions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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