list_providers

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'list' strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, which is a core behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly confirm a read-only nature, nor does it disclose any network calls, authentication dependencies, or failure modes, leaving some uncertainty.

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 sentence that moves from the general operation to specific examples and output attributes. It is highly compact, with no redundant words. Every phrase adds value, and the essential 'List known provider presets' is front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema, the description takes responsibility for defining what is returned; it does so by naming permitted hosts, expected field names, and environment variable mappings. It also adds a practical use-case with clear context. It does not mention edge cases like empty providers or exact formatting, but these are not strongly demanded for such a simple read-only tool.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to describe. The description correctly focuses on the operation and its output without mentioning input requirements. According to the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 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 explicitly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('provider presets'), and the output contents ('allowed hosts, expected field names, and env-var mappings'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling secret-related tools by focusing on the provider domain. There is no tautology; it goes beyond merely restating the tool name.

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 provides a clear when-to-use signal: 'Useful before asking the user to add a new credential.' This grounds the tool as a prerequisite step in a credential-adding workflow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the given context is sufficient for most cases.

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