list-providers

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile (readOnlyHint, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds valuable context that it does not call vendors or expose secrets, which goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about side effects and data sensitivity.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The first sentence clearly states what is listed; the second adds a useful safety caveat without verbosity.

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?

Given no parameters, a rich output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns and its safety. It could be stronger by indicating when to use it relative to siblings, but for a parameterless listing tool it is largely complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The schema is empty, and no additional parameter semantics are needed or expected.

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?

States a specific verb 'List' and enumerates the resources (sources, access tiers, availability, operations, setup variables). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the paper-focused sibling tools, and omits the term 'providers' from the description, leaving a slight gap in mapping to the tool name.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The only sentence beyond the listing is a behavioral note ('Does not call vendors or expose secrets'), which does not help an agent decide between this and alternative tools.

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