get_api_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 for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns a status message about whether API credentials are configured, but it omits any mention of side effects, network access, or authentication requirements. For a read-only status check this is adequate but shallow.

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 extremely concise, with the action front-loaded and the return value cleanly specified. Every word earns its place; there is no verbosity or irrelevant detail.

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 parameterless status check, the description covers the essential purpose and return value. It does not elaborate on interpreting the status message or external dependencies, but an output schema exists and sibling tools help define the domain, making this sufficiently complete.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies, and the description does not introduce any parameter-related confusion.

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 states a specific action ('Check the status of mParticle API configuration') and clearly identifies the resource being checked. It is readily distinguished from sibling tools that operate on data plans, so an agent can tell them apart without deeper investigation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling data plan tools, so the usage context is only implied. However, the zero parameters and the specific resource ('API configuration' vs 'data plans') make the intended scenario reasonably clear.

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