rca_provider_list_configs

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

The description adds significant value beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description confirms this by stating it returns configuration without side effects. It also details the return format (JSON config dict with setup instructions) and lists supported providers, providing complete behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a list of supported providers, and an args section. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly longer than necessary. Every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity (one parameter with subfields) and presence of output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main functionality and return value, but lacks detail on the 'token' and 'client_id' parameters, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 description adds partial value for the 'provider' parameter, listing possible values and behavior. However, it does not explain the 'token' (required) or 'client_id' parameters. The schema has 0% coverage, so the description should compensate, but it falls short for these two fields.

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 tool's purpose: to get MCP client configuration and setup instructions for a specific provider or list all supported providers. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which share this objective.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (to get configuration for a listed provider) and how to use it (specify provider or omit to list all). It does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but given the unique purpose among siblings, this is clear enough.

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