timps_list_providers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description states it 'Show[s]' all configured providers and the active one, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. While it does not explicitly say 'does not modify state' or list permissions, the verb and context make the read-only nature clear. It adds value by framing the output for debugging, which is useful for the agent's decision-making.

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 two sentences, both front-loaded and directly relevant. The first sentence states the action and scope, and the second adds a practical use case. There is no wasted wording; every word earns 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?

For a simple listing tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does (list providers and active one) and why to use it (debugging). No additional information is needed; the agent can determine when to invoke this tool without ambiguity.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty. With no parameters, the description does not need to explain any. Per the rubric, 0 params receive a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist.

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 function: 'Show all configured LLM providers and which one is currently active.' It uses a specific verb ('Show') and a distinct resource (LLM providers), and the purpose is unambiguous. It stands apart from sibling tools like timps_list_agents (which lists agents) and timps_dispatch (which sends), so no confusion.

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 a clear usage context: 'Useful for debugging which model is handling agent calls.' This indicates when to use the tool (debugging) and gives a practical scenario. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately among related tools.

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