opencode_config_providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., no mention of output format, but an output schema exists). It is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction. Since annotations carry the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the key detail (default models) efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema that defines the return, and annotations cover safety. The description tells the agent what it does. The only gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to siblings, but for a straightforward list tool this is a minor omission. Overall, an agent can call it correctly with the provided information.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameter (directory), so the schema already documents its meaning and optionality. The description adds nothing about parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('configured providers') with an additional detail ('their default models'). It distinguishes from config_update (which is a write) and config_get (which gets config), though it does not explicitly contrast with opencode_provider_list, which could also list providers. The phrase 'configured' and 'default models' adds specificity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like opencode_provider_list or opencode_provider_models. The agent must infer usage from the description alone, with no mention of conditions or exclusions.

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