list_providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the behavioral profile is clear. The description adds value by listing the return fields (total, provider name, slug, integration, status, limits, expiration, reset flags), which provides context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: first sentence states the action and scope, second gives usage guidance and return field enumeration. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, annotations present, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and return fields completely. Pagination details are already in the schema, so no further elaboration needed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described (page_size, current_page, workspace_id). The description does not add additional parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List workspace-scoped provider instances and their limits or status,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool list_integrations by noting the different scopes (workspace vs org-level).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to find provider slugs for workspace-level updates') and when to use an alternative ('use list_integrations for the org-level source connection'). This provides clear context and exclusion.

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