vtex_get_payment_provider

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. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, potential rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid provider ID), or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word ('Get', 'payment provider', 'configuration') contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' includes (e.g., JSON structure, fields), error handling, or authentication requirements. For a tool that likely returns complex provider settings, more context is needed to help the agent interpret results or handle failures.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'providerId' documented as 'Provider ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this (e.g., explaining where to find the ID, format examples, or valid values). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('payment provider configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'vtex_list_payment_providers' (which lists multiple providers) and 'vtex_create_payment_provider' (which creates new providers). However, it doesn't specify what 'configuration' entails (e.g., settings, credentials, status), leaving some ambiguity.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a provider ID), compare it to 'vtex_list_payment_providers' for discovery, or indicate typical use cases (e.g., troubleshooting, setup verification). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter alone.

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