list_oauth_providers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool returns a list of providers and authorization status, implying a read-only operation without explicitly saying so. It adds no context about prerequisites, side effects, or limitations, but the simplicity of a list tool reduces the need for extensive disclosure.

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 brief but contains redundancy: the first and second sentences both state it lists providers and authorization status. The usage sentence adds value, but the 'Returns a list' sentence is unnecessary and could be merged or removed. The structure front-loads the core purpose, but the redundancy detracts from conciseness.

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 simple, parameterless list operation with an output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose, output scope, and a use case. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the clarity of the purpose is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description's use of 'available' adds minor semantic context about filtering, which is more than required. No parameter explanation is 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 tool lists available OAuth providers and their authorization status, using the specific verb 'List' and a distinct resource. This differentiates it from action-oriented siblings like authorize_oauth and revoke_oauth. The purpose is unambiguous and not tautological.

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 explicitly provides a use case: 'Use this to see which services support OAuth and whether they're authorized,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use check_server_auth instead, so it falls short of the highest level.

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