provider_status

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

The description discloses the tool's behavior: pinging one model per provider and returning latency/status. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only or any side effects, but the behavior is adequately described for a health check tool.

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 long, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. There is no wasted text.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (not shown), the description explains the return value (latency and status) and purpose. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Check health', specifies the resource 'all configured providers', and explains the method 'pinging one model from each'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a diagnostic health check rather than a model invocation or configuration tool.

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 usage context: 'Useful for diagnosing which providers are currently responsive vs overloaded.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for related tasks.

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