llm_test_key

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

The description discloses that it performs a '1-token ping,' which is behavioral. However, it does not specify the response format (e.g., success/failure indication) or any side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden, but it is only partially transparent.

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 that front-loads the purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify the return value (e.g., boolean, status message) or mention prerequisites like the need to have already added the key via llm_add_key. These gaps reduce completeness.

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 single parameter 'provider' has no description in the schema (coverage 0%), and the description does not clarify its meaning, expected values, or how it relates to stored keys. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action ('test'), the resource ('provider's key'), and the method ('1-token ping'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like llm_add_key (adds key) and llm_remove_key (removes key) by focusing on validation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that the key must first be added via llm_add_key before testing, nor does it clarify scenarios where testing is unnecessary.

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