litellm_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently declares the tool as 'safe, read-only' and enumerates the types of data accessible. This sufficiently conveys the non-destructive nature, though it lacks details on error handling or access requirements.

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 three sentences plus an example, front-loading the purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: purpose, discovery method, and example. No redundant words.

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 dynamic nature (many sub-operations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains how to discover operations via help and provides a working example. It could mention return value format or error behavior, but the limited schema and no output schema make this acceptable.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds critical meaning: it explains that 'operation' is the operation name and that 'params' is a JSON object with parameters. The example and the help mechanism provide concrete guidance, compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 is for querying LiteLLM proxy data in a safe, read-only manner and lists categories of operations (lists, infos, spend/usage, health, settings reads, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like litellm_admin, litellm_delete, litellm_execute by emphasizing the read-only nature.

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 explicitly instructs to call with operation="help" to list all available read operations, providing a clear discovery mechanism. It gives a concrete example (litellm_read(operation="ListKeys")). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the read-only context and sibling differentiation imply appropriate usage.

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