list_providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description reinforces 'Read-only.' More valuably, it discloses the return shape (JSON array of {name, description, prefixes}) and explains that `prefixes` are literal key prefixes used for auto-detection – behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then usage, then read-only note, then return shape – in that priority order. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant with structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, which it does fully ({name, description, prefixes} and what prefixes mean). Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description nonetheless explains the semantics of the returned `prefixes` field (e.g. 'sk-' for OpenAI), which is the closest analogue to parameter meaning for a zero-arg discovery tool.

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 ('Enumerate') and resource ('secret-validation providers q-ring knows how to call') with concrete examples (OpenAI, Stripe, GitHub). It also names the sibling tools (validate_secret/rotate_secret) that consume the output, so an agent can distinguish it from the many other list_* tools.

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?

Explicitly states two use cases: discovering the `provider` string to pass to validate_secret/rotate_secret, and checking whether a custom provider is registered. This routes the agent correctly relative to siblings without requiring inference.

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