ecp_git_list_providers

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the load. It does reveal a read-only, scope-limited behavior ('enabled for this install'), but it does not mention permissions, return format, or any edge cases like unknown providers.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical list of provider names is compact and adds meaning without bloating the text.

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, no-output-schema list operation, the description adequately conveys the operation, scope, and result subject. It is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though a bit more detail about the return shape would fully close the gap.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing to document. The description adds useful domain context by enumerating the provider types (GitHub/GitLab/Bitbucket), making the baseline of 4 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 verb ('List'), the resource ('git providers'), and narrows it to GitHub/GitLab/Bitbucket enabled for the install. This is distinguishable from siblings like ecp_git_list_connections and ecp_git_list_repos.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related git tools such as ecp_git_list_connections or ecp_git_authorize_url. The intended use case must be inferred from the name and description.

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