List Providers

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with a closed world, but the description adds useful context by specifying the return content (model counts and pricing ranges). It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral details beyond them, though it lacks information on rate limits or pagination.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and uses a second sentence to clarify the return format, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making every sentence earn its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete by specifying what is returned. However, it could be slightly enhanced by mentioning the lack of filtering or sorting options, though this is not critical for a list-all tool.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4 as there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to compensate for any gaps, and it efficiently states the tool's purpose without redundant parameter information.

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 specific action ('List all LLM providers') and the resources returned ('with model counts and pricing ranges for each'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'tokencost_list_models' which lists models rather than providers. It precisely defines the verb and scope without redundancy.

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 usage by specifying what it returns (providers with counts and pricing), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tokencost_list_models' or 'tokencost_get_model_pricing'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in context.

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