inspect_providers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It lists what information is returned but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if it has side effects, performance implications, or error handling behavior (e.g., for invalid paths or missing providers).

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 sentences efficiently convey the core action and additional details without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 description covers what the tool lists but is not fully complete. It lacks specification of output format (structured vs. text), order of providers, or behavior when the plugin has no providers. Given the single parameter and no output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter 'path'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it lists all ServiceProviders in a plugin, including register() and boot() methods, bindings, hook registrations, and registered providers. This specific verb-resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_file or generate_provider.

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 implies the tool is for inspecting service providers, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., inspect_file, generate_provider) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the path parameter.

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