list_storage_providers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal one return characteristic (which provider is active versus merely available), which signals a read-only inspection operation, but it says nothing about permissions, side effects, or output shape.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the operation and resource, with the return detail following immediately. Slightly redundant in repeating 'disponíveis', but there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by stating what is returned (active flag plus available providers). For a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, though it stops short of describing the full response structure.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level information is needed or missing.

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 names a specific verb (Lista) and resource (storage providers) and adds scope detail: it reports which provider is active and which are available. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related siblings get_storage_config and configure_storage, which deal with the same storage domain.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_storage_config or configure_storage, which operate on the same storage-provider concept. Usage is only implied by the purpose itself, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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