fossa_list_oidc_providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reaffirms 'Read-only.' It goes beyond by disclosing pagination mechanics, the issuer-URL nature of providers, the premium subscription requirement yielding a 403, and that no credential/client secret is returned. This is rich behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by essential behavioral details. No wasted words; every sentence adds meaningful information.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover read-only safety, the description provides sufficient context: what the list contains, how pagination works, how filtering works, the permission prerequisite, and the absence of credentials. It covers the main edge cases an agent would encounter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `prev` parameter as a cursor for pagination and clarifies that `filter_scope_id` is required when filtering by team scope. It does not explicitly explain `page_size` or the `filter_scope` enum values, but the names are self-evident and the description adds meaning to the non-obvious parameters.

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 states 'List the OIDC identity providers this FOSSA organization federates with,' using a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies that each provider is an issuer URL, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fossa_get_oidc_provider (singular) and list_oidc_trust_relationships.

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?

Provides clear usage context: pagination via cursor ('pass the `last` value from a previous page as `prev`'), filtering requirements ('Filtering by team scope requires `filter_scope_id`'), and a subscription prerequisite (premium; 403 otherwise). It does not explicitly name alternatives but the list vs. get distinction is implied by the resource name.

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