Nable setup status

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

Despite readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations already covering safety, the description adds substantial behavioral context: detected ambient credentials, the one-command connect path, the prohibition on asking for secrets in chat, and when to direct users to their own terminal. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening summary, usage triggers, hard rules, and examples. Each section earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what the tool returns (connected providers, existing credentials, exact commands) and how to act on that information. It also includes examples, making it complete for a no-parameter status tool.

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. The description still explains what information the tool reports, which indirectly defines the empty input expectation, but there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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: reporting onboarding status, existing credentials, and exact commands for remaining providers. It distinguishes itself from siblings like connect_aws and list_connected_providers by focusing on agent-driven setup status and the full onboarding picture.

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 says when to call ('when the user asks to connect a provider, says setup is incomplete, or asks what they are missing') and gives hard rules/preferences for how to handle credentials. It also names preferred zero-secret paths like `finops connect`, providing clear guidance over alternatives.

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