agent_credential_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only status check (enrolled key and its kid) but does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or auth requirements beyond the implicit identity of the caller. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core question and the returned field (kid). No filler or redundancy.

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-param, output-schema-backed status tool, the description covers the core question and output field. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly indicates no inputs are needed to perform the status check.

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 query about the caller's enrolled agent key and its kid. The resource is clear, though the phrasing restates the name somewhat. It sits adjacent to sibling tools like enroll_agent_credential and revoke_agent_credential, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from them.

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 context is implied (check current enrollment state) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives like revoke_agent_credential or enroll_agent_credential that an agent might choose instead.

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