check_toss_api_credentials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key safety behavior: credentials are checked but not exposed. It also implies a local, non-mutating check rather than an API call. It does not specify success/failure return details, but the presence of an output schema reduces that need.

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, tightly written sentence that names the action, the subject, and a critical non-exposure guarantee. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter credential-presence checker, the description is highly complete: it states what is checked and the safety constraint. The output schema presumably covers return values. It could further clarify how this differs from toss_test_connection, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description appropriately focuses entirely on the tool's action rather than arguments. Baseline 4 for a zero-parameter tool 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('TOSS_CLIENT_ID / TOSS_CLIENT_SECRET'), and the precise condition being tested ('were loaded'). It also adds a distinct safety qualifier ('without exposing them'), which separates it from sibling tools like toss_test_connection that actually test connectivity rather than checking local credential presence.

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 clearly implies this tool is for verifying that TOSS credentials are present before use, rather than for testing a live connection or performing any operation. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know this is a preflight environment check, especially alongside toss_test_connection.

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