whodb_platform_ai_providers

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond them: the guarantee that provider API keys are never returned (a security/return-shape boundary worth stating), and that passing workspace targets only that call without mutating session defaults. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the filter hint and the caveats. Each sentence carries a distinct load: purpose, filter guidance, secret-exclusion plus targeting semantics.

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?

With 10 optional parameters, a nested workspace object and no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent could get wrong: it will not leak API keys, and workspace overrides are per-call only. It omits pagination/fields behavior, which matters for a list tool with limit/offset, but the core call-time contract is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 10 parameters is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description echoes the name/type filters and the workspace targeting but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail the schema does not already contain.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "List hosted AI provider metadata in the selected project." An agent knows exactly what it gets back in kind (provider metadata, not models or keys). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the adjacent sibling whodb_platform_ai_provider_models, which is the one tool an agent is most likely to confuse it with.

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?

"Use name and type filters when known" is the only usage steering, and it addresses filter usage rather than tool selection. There is no stated condition for choosing this over whodb_platform_ai_provider_models, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is implied by the purpose statement but never made explicit.

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