keychain_recheck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: it calls provider APIs, records real results, defaults to stale/missing proofs, and treats unreachable providers as reported rather than failed. It could say more about exactly what state is updated and whether any connection status changes, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and rationale, then default behavior and unreachable-provider handling. Every sentence contributes useful selection or behavioral context without waste.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, it explains why the tool exists, when it runs by default, and how unreachable providers are treated. It does not describe the response shape or per-credential result format, which is a gap given there is no output schema, but the operational semantics are largely complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so `max`, `platform`, and `include_fresh` are already documented in the schema. The description adds useful default-scope context but does not add meaning for each parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: re-prove stored credentials by calling each platform's API and recording the real result. It also differentiates the tool from status-oriented siblings by explaining that nothing else re-tests a credential after connection, so revoked keys otherwise keep reading as connected.

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?

Gives clear usage context: by default it only tests credentials whose proof is missing or stale, while `include_fresh` allows broader re-testing. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as `keychain_status`, but the default scope and rationale make the intended use clear.

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