kalei_providers

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the phrase 'supported for BYOK profiling' scopes the behavior. However, the description does not disclose return format, authentication requirements, or failure behavior, leaving a minor transparency gap for an otherwise simple tool.

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 filler. The main action ('List AI providers supported for BYOK profiling') comes first, and the parenthetical enumeration adds concrete details without bloating the text.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-free list tool, the description is nearly complete: an agent knows exactly what to call, that no arguments are needed, and roughly what content to expect. The main gaps are the unexplained 'BYOK' acronym and the lack of any statement about the return structure, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters, so the empty schema already fully communicates that no arguments are required. The description adds contextual value by naming the providers, but no parameter-level documentation is needed. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 uses a specific verb and object: 'List AI providers supported for BYOK profiling,' and it enumerates the exact providers included (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc.). This clearly identifies the tool's resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like kalei_model or kalei_compare, even without mentioning them explicitly.

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 context is clear: this is the tool to use when you need the list of providers supported for BYOK profiling. It does not explicitly describe when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter lookup tool the intended use is evident and no exclusions are needed.

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