List connected providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: it marks each provider as connected or not-configured, includes the active plan, and names the setup command for each missing provider. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, providing expected output details.

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 concise enough: two short paragraphs plus two example questions. The main functional description is front-loaded, and the examples clarify typical intents. Each sentence adds value—no filler or repetition of schema/annotations.

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 read-only list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it lists, how it labels providers, the active plan, and the setup command hint. It addresses common user questions (which providers, is GCP set up) and gives enough context for invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4 as per rubric. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning; it correctly focuses on behavior and output.

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 all known providers with connection status and active plan, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling connect_* tools by focusing on listing status rather than establishing connections.

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?

It explicitly says this is the starting point for 'what am I connected to' and for spotting missing credentials, with setup commands named for each not-configured entry. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the sibling names (connect_aws, connect_azure) make it implicit that those are for setup. Lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause.

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