get_default_provider

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') and resource, but does not mention potential error cases (e.g., no default provider), authentication requirements, or any side effects. The tool is a simple getter, but the description offers no transparency beyond the basic purpose.

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 sentence of nine words, containing no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for an AI agent to quickly parse.

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?

While the tool is simple (zero parameters, output schema present), the description lacks context about when to use it versus alternatives and provides no behavioral details such as error conditions or return value semantics. The output schema covers return values, but the absence of usage guidance and behavioral transparency makes the description only minimally complete for a zero-parameter getter.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools, as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-specific information but does not need to.

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: retrieving connection details for the default/active storage provider. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource, making it distinct from sibling list_providers, which lists all providers rather than the active one.

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 implies the tool should be used when the default/active provider's connection details are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like list_providers. The sibling list provides context, but the description itself lacks explicit usage instructions or exclusions.

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