Providers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It labels actions as 'list, health, or spec,' which implies read-only operations, but it does not explicitly state that it does not mutate state, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or response behavior. The phrase 'operational state' is vague and does not clarify what an agent should expect regarding preconditions or consequences.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and action list. There is no repetitive or wasted wording. It loses a point because it is so terse that it omits useful clarifications (e.g., which params apply to which action), but for pure conciseness it is well structured.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what each action returns or what the operational state encompasses. It does not describe the output format, whether 'health' returns status codes, whether 'spec' returns configuration details, or how 'status' filters listing. For a tool with three distinct actions, the missing behavioral and output context makes it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 schema provides full descriptions for all parameters (action enum, status filter, provider slug) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the action names; it does not elaborate on relationships like 'provider is required for health' or how status interacts with list. While it does reinforce the enum values, it does not elevate understanding beyond the schema.

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 that the tool deals with operational state over configured providers and enumerates the actions (list, health, spec). This clearly identifies the resource (providers) and the operations, differentiating it from sibling tools like web_search or fetch_page. However, phrasing 'operational state over' is slightly indirect – it could be more explicit like 'manage or inspect configured providers' – so it doesn't reach a perfect 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools operate on different domains (search, page fetch, reload config, corroborate, KB), but the description does not mention them or state conditions for selection. The agent is left to infer that this is for provider-specific operations.

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