List image providers

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: it discovers models live from each provider, it considers only API-key-configured providers, and it identifies the default. The refresh parameter hint about caching is in the schema. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it reasonably discloses the live-discovery behavior and default-selection logic.

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?

One efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource while packing in the key behaviors (config-based filtering, live model discovery, default determination). It's dense but not bloated; there's marginal room to trim but no waste present.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what it lists, how it discovers models, and what default is reported. It doesn't detail return format, but with no output schema and read-like behavior this is a reasonable stopping point. Slight gap on return structure, hence not a 5.

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% (single refresh param well documented in schema). The description adds value by explaining that the default provider/model selection is reported and that models are discovered live, providing context beyond the bare schema. Baseline of 3 applies with full coverage, and the description contributes supplementary context, warranting a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') with a clear resource ('which image providers are configured via API key'), and elaborates on the specific outputs: available models discovered live, and default provider/model selection. It clearly distinguishes from siblings text-to-image and image-to-image, which are generation tools rather than listing tools.

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 this is an informational discovery tool (list configured providers and their models), which clearly contrasts with the sibling generation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this to discover available providers before calling text-to-image' or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so there's some implicit rather than explicit usage framing.

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