cigchat_flow_settings_get_default_ai_provider

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (Manage Flow scope) and the HTTP method (GET), implying a safe read operation. It does not describe response format or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter getter, the disclosed scope and endpoint provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 a single compact sentence that packs in the purpose, available values, endpoint, and scope. Every word is informative, with no filler. It is well-structured and immediately front-loads the core function.

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 GET tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the domain values, the exact endpoint, and the required scope. The lack of response format details is acceptable given the simplicity, and the description provides all necessary context for selection and 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds value by listing the valid AI provider values, which helps the agent interpret the return value even though no parameters exist. There is no schema to compensate for, and the description enriches understanding of the data domain.

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: to get the default AI provider and model. It lists the available provider values (openai, deepseek, etc.) and includes the REST endpoint, which distinguishes it from the sibling setter tool and other provider-related tools. The verb 'get' and resource 'default ai provider and model' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context: use this to retrieve the default AI provider and model. It also specifies the required 'Manage Flow' scope, indicating a prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use set_default_ai_provider to change it'), but the GET semantics and sibling tool names make the intended usage obvious.

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