edgegate_get_qaihub_integration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the token itself is not returned, which is a valuable behavioral disclosure. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or response details beyond the connected/active status.

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 concise sentence plus a clarifying clause. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fill. The front-loaded verb 'Show' immediately conveys the action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and return values (connected/active). It does not specify response format or error cases, but for a status check it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the workspace_id parameter or its role. The phrase 'this workspace' loosely references it, but the description adds no meaningful detail about parameter usage or format beyond what the schema provides.

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 function: showing whether a Qualcomm AI Hub token is connected and active. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource (Qualcomm AI Hub integration), distinguishing it from siblings like edgegate_connect_qaihub and edgegate_get_huggingface_integration.

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 implies usage for checking QAI Hub connection status, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool. No explicit 'when to use' or 'use instead' guidance is provided, so it relies on the name and context.

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