config_providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of whether providers are discovered from the project/workdir, no auth or environment requirements, and no return shape. It merely restates the purpose.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification for a tool whose sibling set is large.

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 simple read-only list operation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not clarify what the listed providers are scoped to (project vs workdir) or what the output contains, but with no output schema that omission is minor.

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 100%, so both optional parameters (project, workdir) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, hence the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list the available translation providers. That is clear enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings like config_set/config_unset, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from config_show or config_path.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus config_show, config_path, or engine_list, and no prerequisites or context for use. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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