Providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('configured in the RAS farm') and listing concrete provider types, which helps the agent understand what data to expect. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and scope with examples, the second provides usage guidelines. Every word adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 read-only tool with comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what data to expect (provider types), addressing all necessary context without needing output schema details.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics by listing provider types, which compensates for the lack of output schema. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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') and resource ('all cloud and hypervisor providers configured in the RAS farm'), with specific examples (AVD, AWS EC2, Azure, Hyper-V, Nutanix, vCenter, VMware ESXi). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on providers rather than administrators, config, licensing, etc.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to verify provider connectivity, check provider types, or audit multi-cloud config.' It provides clear use cases without needing to mention alternatives, as the zero-parameter nature and provider focus naturally differentiate it from sibling tools.

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