SAML Identity Providers

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with open-world data. The description adds valuable context by specifying the return data structure (provider names, metadata URLs, configuration details) and use cases (audit, troubleshooting), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions exist 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?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and return data, the second provides usage guidelines. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation with annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and output details. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention about pagination or result limits, but this is reasonable for a list tool with open-world hint. With no output schema, the description adequately compensates.

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, mentioning what data is returned. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage by providing useful context about the tool's output.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('List SAML identity providers') and resources ('configured for single sign-on'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ras_infra_get_providers' by specifying SAML IDPs for SSO. It explicitly mentions what information is returned (provider names, metadata URLs, configuration details), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'to audit SSO configuration or troubleshoot SAML authentication issues.' This directly informs the agent about appropriate contexts, helping it choose this tool over alternatives like general 'get_providers' or other infrastructure tools for specific SSO-related tasks.

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