get_provider_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing that keys are only shown masked and that the output includes provider-to-tool associations. It does not explicitly state there are no side effects, but the verb 'check' and focus on reading configuration imply a read-only operation.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The most important behavioral detail, masked keys, is included up front, and the additional capability is stated in a second concise sentence.

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 status tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is checked, what is returned conceptually, and a key privacy constraint. It could go further by specifying the exact return format, but given the tool's simplicity, no critical information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately does not invent parameter details, and the 100% schema coverage for an empty schema means nothing is left undocumented.

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: checking which AI provider API keys are configured, with the important caveat that keys are shown masked. It also mentions an additional function—listing which providers each generation tool can use—which distinguishes it from key-setting siblings like set_provider_key.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to inspect configured provider keys and provider availability for generation tools. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative, but the read-only diagnostic purpose is evident from the wording.

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