sc_get_provider_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the tool always returns success=True and that an unconfigured provider returns provider='None', available=False rather than an error. It also documents the output shape clearly. This is strong transparency for a simple read-style query tool, though it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects.

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 well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a concise behavioral note, a structured list of outputs, and an example. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every section adds practical value, including the KB pointer and example call.

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 zero-parameter, read-only information tool, the description is complete. It defines all possible provider values, explains the no-provider behavior, lists every output field with its meaning, and provides an example. The output schema exists, but the description adds enough context that an agent can confidently invoke and interpret the result.

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 zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description reinforces this with an example call, sc_get_provider_info(), and the schema already confirms no properties are required. No additional parameter meaning 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving information about the active source control provider, and enumerates the exact values returned such as provider, available, workspace, server, and user. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling source-control tools like sc_get_status or sc_get_changelist.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to get information about the active source control provider. It also explains the no-provider case, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related siblings or when not to use it.

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