keychain_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the check is scoped to credentials stored for the current UNCLICK_API_KEY, but it does not explain status values or return 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and scope immediately, which is appropriate for this simple read-only tool.

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 read-only annotations, complete single-parameter schema, and absence of an output schema, the description supplies enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It could be stronger by clarifying the expected status output or how it differs from keychain_recheck.

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%, and the schema already explains that the optional platform parameter returns all connected platforms when omitted. The description adds only the "one or all" framing and API-key scoping, which is useful context but not much 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?

States a specific verb, "Check," and a specific resource, "connection status of one or all platform credentials stored in the UnClick Keychain." It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as keychain_recheck or keychain_list_platforms.

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 implies the tool is for checking credential status and mentions "one or all," but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus keychain_recheck, keychain_list_platforms, or keychain_connect/disconnect. The only usage detail is inherited from the schema's optional platform parameter.

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