ai_provider_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'real-time status/latency/incident feed,' it doesn't describe what format the data comes in, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, how frequently it updates, or what happens when providers are down. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single phrase that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the essential information. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separating status, latency, and incident aspects) for clarity.

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 apparent complexity (monitoring multiple AI providers in real-time), no annotations, no output schema, and a single but complex parameter (free-form object), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how to interpret it, or provide any context about the monitoring service being used. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'params' is documented as a free-form object passed as query string for GET or JSON body for POST). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param details in the description.

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: providing real-time status, latency, and incident feed for three major AI providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google). It uses specific verbs ('status', 'latency', 'incident feed') and identifies the target resources. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ai_rate_limit_tracker' or 'llm_router' that might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple AI-related sibling tools (e.g., ai_rate_limit_tracker, llm_router, ai_cost_calculator), there's no indication of when this status/latency/incident feed is appropriate versus those other tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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