Show available CLI providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed (non-open-world) scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the check covers both installation and sign-in state, which is useful context, but says nothing about behavior with zero providers found or what state is reported.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is reported, the second gives the diagnostic use case. No filler or redundancy.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately tells the agent what the tool determines and why to reach for it. Only minor gaps remain, such as the shape or granularity of the reported provider status.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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: report which supported CLIs are installed and signed in, naming the concrete set (Claude Code, Codex, GitHub Copilot). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling predict_failures by framing itself as its diagnostic counterpart.

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 says 'Call this to diagnose why predict_failures is failing,' giving a clear triggering condition tied to a named sibling. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it (e.g., routine health checks), so it falls just short of the top score.

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