List AI Provider profiles

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific context by detailing what is not returned (hostnames, node names, exit IPs, credentials) and clarifies it covers both public templates and local enablement state, going beyond generic read-only hints.

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?

A single sentence that starts with the verb 'List', front-loading the primary action, and packs in scope plus exclusions without redundancy. Every word contributes 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?

For a simple listing tool with a provided output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose and safety exclusions. The only gap is the undocumented config_path parameter, which would improve completeness but is not severely detrimental.

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 only parameter (config_path) has no schema-level description, and the tool description never mentions it. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without any guidance on how or why to use the parameter.

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 lists public Provider templates and local enablement state, and explicitly excludes sensitive data. This differentiates it from siblings like discover_provider_domains which might return such data.

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 a safe listing use case by specifying exclusions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or name any sibling tools. There is no direct 'use this when...' guidance.

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