provider.query

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating maturity level and per-request policy requirements, and it aligns with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. However, it adds little beyond the annotations beyond confirming 'Risk: read' and does not explain behavior like what data is queried or how responses are returned.

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 compact and front-loaded with the command identifier and risk level. Its brevity is appropriate for the format, even though the limited content reduces overall usefulness.

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 tool with 7 parameters, a nested object, an output schema, and many sibling tools, this minimal description is not sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose or when to invoke it. The annotations and output schema compensate partially, but the essential semantics of 'provider.query' are still missing.

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?

With only 57% schema description coverage, the description provides no parameter-level meaning. The schema already documents parameters like _requestId and _transactionId, but the description does not help clarify `action`, `params`, or `providerId`, so the gap is not compensated.

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 only restates the tool name/title ('PartMe Blender Harness command `provider.query`') and adds a risk label, but never states what the query actually does. It does not differentiate from siblings like provider_query_result, provider_external_action, or provider_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related provider-related siblings. 'Requirements: Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply' states constraints, not usage context or alternative selection.

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