goclaw_provider_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get details', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include (e.g., configuration, status). For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage, behavior, and output. For a simple read operation, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide complete context for reliable agent invocation without additional inference.

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 has 100% description coverage (the 'id' parameter is described as 'Provider ID'), so the schema already documents the parameter adequately. The description doesn't add any extra meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, where to find the ID, examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose as 'Get details of a specific LLM provider', which is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('LLM provider'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'goclaw_provider_list' (which lists providers) and 'goclaw_provider_create' (which creates providers), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'goclaw_provider_get' vs other 'get' tools (e.g., 'goclaw_agent_get'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a provider ID), when to use it over 'goclaw_provider_list', or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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