Get model providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description adds real context beyond them by disclosing key redaction and the three top-level result keys (services, local_models, remote_providers). The 'Read-only' sentence merely restates readOnlyHint, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the alternative routing, and no filler. The standalone 'Read-only' sentence duplicates the annotation and is the one line that doesn't earn its place.

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?

Zero parameters and a declared output schema mean the description does not need to explain return shapes, yet it still names the top-level result keys. Purpose, scope, redaction behavior and sibling routing are all covered, leaving no gap for an agent calling this correctly.

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; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and the description correctly does not invent any argument behavior.

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 local inference backends and Studio-configured remote providers, plus the notable qualifier that keys are redacted. An agent can distinguish this from catalogue/listing siblings without opening any schema.

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 routes to alternatives with their selecting conditions: use list_models for model names only, and get_status with scope=services for port health only. That is exactly the when-to-use-this-vs-siblings guidance an agent needs.

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