Resolve LLM Credential

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

The description is minimal and relies heavily on the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It does not disclose behavioral details such as what 'resolve' returns (e.g., plaintext secret), potential errors, or any side effects beyond what the annotations already imply.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple, and the schema plus annotations cover most needs. However, with no output schema, the description could have explained what the resolved credential looks like or clarified the distinction between the two parameters, which it does not.

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%, with both provider_id and credential_id already well-described. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond referencing 'by credential or provider id,' which is already captured in 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?

The description clearly states the tool resolves an LLM credential by credential or provider id, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar credential-related sibling tools like lyzr_credential_get or lyzr_get_provider_credential.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many credential-related sibling tools available, there is no indication of what makes resolve_llm_credential the right choice or any exclusions.

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