List providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the dimension of 'connection options and status' but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or what 'status' specifically entails (connected, available, error states, etc.). With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate — partial added value.

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?

A single concise sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the verb and resource clearly.

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?

This is a listing tool with pagination parameters (limit, cursor) and no output schema. The description does not mention that results are paginated, whether there is ordering, or what a provider connection 'option' includes (auth modes, endpoints, status fields). For a listing tool with two undocumented pagination params, the description leaves meaningful gaps but is not dangerously incomplete.

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 description coverage is only 33% — only project_id has a description. The description itself adds no parameter details. The limit and cursor parameters for pagination are undocumented, though the description's mention of 'status' hints at possibly many providers. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage on these two parameters.

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 provider connection options and status for a project,' which uses a clear verb (list) plus resource (provider connection options and status) scoped to a project. It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like connect_provider, test_provider_connection, and get_provider_rates by focusing on 'options and status' listing.

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 this is used to see what provider connection options exist and their status. It does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like get_provider_rates, get_capabilities, or test_provider_connection, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a connected provider. Context is implied but no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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