providers

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond listing contents; it doesn't disclose authentication needs or rate limits, but these are not critical for a read-only listing tool.

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: first defines the tool's output, second explains usage. No redundant information. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the returned items: configuration details, default models, base URLs, and current status. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's return value. With zero parameters and good annotations, the description is complete.

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?

No parameters are defined (0 params), and schema coverage is 100% by absence. The description correctly avoids parameter details. Baseline 4 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 clearly states the tool lists all supported LLM providers with specific details like configuration, default models, base URLs, and status. The verb 'List' and resource 'supported LLM providers' are unambiguous, and it differentiates from siblings like chat, health, stats, and validation_history.

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 tells when to use the tool: to see provider availability, default models, and custom base URLs for proxy/mirror setups. While it doesn't mention when not to use it, the context is clear and sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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