llmconveyors-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and succeeds: it states 'Read-only, no side effects' for safety profile, 'Requires scope: settings:read' for authentication needs, and describes return values ('Returns each provider name and whether a key is configured'). Lacks only edge case or error condition 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?

Seven sentences efficiently structured with purpose first, followed by return values, usage context, safety/auth notes, and sibling references. Each sentence delivers distinct value without redundancy, though slightly longer than minimal necessary.

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?

Fully complete for a zero-parameter read tool lacking output schema: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, required permissions, safety characteristics, and exact relationship to sibling tools (byo-key-set, settings-supported-providers). No gaps remain for an agent to invoke this 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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, which per guidelines sets a baseline of 4. No parameter description is required or expected, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inventing fictional parameters.

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 uses a clear verb ('Check') with specific resource ('BYO API keys') and scope ('all'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing 'byo-key-set' for configuration and 'settings-supported-providers' for listing available providers, clarifying this tool's distinct purpose is status verification.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('verify BYO key setup before running agents with tier=byo') and names exact alternatives for related operations ('Use settings-supported-providers to see which providers are available', 'Use byo-key-set to configure a key'), providing comprehensive guidance for tool selection.

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