list_identity_providers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It begins with '[READ]' to signal read-only behavior, and explicitly discloses that the IdP returns the complete set and is never truncated. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 compact and well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: what it does, the parameter, and the truncation guarantee. No wasted words.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It provides the return structure, mentions the no-truncation behavior, and covers the parameter. Nothing critical 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 single optional parameter 'target' is fully explained in the description ('target: IdP target name from config; omit for the default'), which goes far beyond the schema's bare 'default: null'. This fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 'lists federated identity providers / sources configured on the IdP', using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_clients, list_users, and list_groups by focusing on identity providers.

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 implies usage for enumerating configured identity providers but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it. It lacks the explicit 'use this instead of X when...' guidance seen in higher-scoring examples.

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