List Execution Providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context on the meaning of ready/strict fields as resolution facts and explicitly warns that a ready provider does not imply language execution testing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 slightly longer than necessary but each sentence adds value: it names the resource, gives examples, and clarifies a common misconception. The key purpose is front-loaded, and the additional explanation is relevant for correct usage.

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, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It provides the necessary distinction from sibling tools and clarifies the semantics of the returned data, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 does not need to explain parameters, but it does mention 'machine-readable capabilities' which hints at the output structure, though the output schema itself covers details.

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 states a clear action (list) and resource (execution providers/backends) with concrete examples (local subprocess, gVisor-strict, remote). It explicitly distinguishes from list_languages by clarifying the backend-vs-language axis, which prevents agent 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?

Explicitly states that this tool is about backend resolution, not language reliability, and names the alternatives (list_languages, runtimes_status, codecalc doctor) that report the separate language tier axis. This gives clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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