AI providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by disclosing what the response actually contains (installed/signed-in/ready flags, current model, next setup step), which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

A single sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields enumerated after the colon. No filler, though the consumer list ('brainstorming, suggestions, the optimizer and the assistant') is slightly verbose for the value it adds.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so concretely by naming the three status states, the current model, and the next setup step. That is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret this tool correctly; only explicit routing versus sibling AI tools 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly describes a parameterless inspection call and does not invent or omit any input semantics.

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?

States a specific resource (status of the local AI providers) and enumerates the exact states reported: installed / signed in / ready, current model, and next setup step. It distinguishes itself from the mutating siblings (set_ai_provider, test_ai_provider) by being purely a status read, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied through the mention of consuming features (brainstorming, suggestions, optimizer, assistant) and the 'next setup step when not ready' hint, which suggests diagnosing configuration problems. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus test_ai_provider or set_ai_provider, and no exclusions are given.

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