ai_admin_list_providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the specific content returned (health, reporting surfaces, known limitations), which goes beyond the raw annotations. However, it does not describe output format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 that conveys all essential information without wasted words. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is fairly complete. It enumerates the included content: enabled providers, health, configured reporting surfaces, and known limitations. There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, which it does sufficiently. A minor gap is not mentioning whether disabled providers are omitted or if any filtering is needed, but the phrase 'enabled providers' clarifies the scope.

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 has no parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is nothing for the description to explain. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'providers' with clear scope: enabled providers, health, configured reporting surfaces, and known limitations. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_admin_query_usage, ai_admin_query_costs, and ai_admin_query_dashboard_bundle, which focus on usage/costs/dashboards rather than provider status.

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 checking enabled providers and their health, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives (e.g., 'use ai_admin_query_usage for usage data'). There is no exclusion or alternative guidance beyond the resource name itself. The context signals from sibling names help, but the description does not articulate when this is the right choice.

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