OVHcloud: Auth Status

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real substance on top: the full set of reported facts, the confinement of `secretFile` paths to OVH_SECRET_DIR, the write-enabled flag, and prescriptive remediation ("exactly what to set") when something is missing. That is behavior an agent could not infer from the annotation alone.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the diagnostic use case front-loaded after the enumeration. The first sentence is dense with comma-separated items but every item is a distinct reported fact that earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden — and it does so by enumerating every reported field plus the remediation behavior for missing config. For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool this is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline applies. The description correctly spends none of its length on inputs and instead covers what the no-arg call reports.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("report") with a precisely enumerated payload: credential validity, auth method, endpoint, default project/region, write-enablement, and the OVH_SECRET_DIR constraint. An agent knows exactly what this tool returns and why it exists without consulting other fields.

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 an explicit trigger — "Call this first when a tool you expected is not listed" — plus the interpretation rule that an absent tool means missing configuration, not a bug. It stops short of stating when *not* to call it (e.g., routine polling), so it lands just under a 5.

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