detect_providers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the high-level behavior (detecting installed/available tools) but does not mention specifics such as read-only nature, environment scope (PATH, system-level), or potential outcomes. The verb 'detect' mildly implies non-destructive behavior, but more context would help.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple with zero parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain what the result looks like. It provides a high-level idea but does not specify the output format (e.g., list of names, paths, versions). This is a minor gap for a detection tool.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are required, and the empty schema confirms this. No parameter descriptions are needed.

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 action ('Detect') and the specific resource ('CLI coding tools installed and available on this system'). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on sessions, tasks, agents, or configuration rather than environment discovery.

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?

Usage is implied: run this tool to see which coding tools are present before using provider-specific capabilities. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative naming, though no sibling tool appears to duplicate this function.

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