List connected providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by describing the response contents — every provider appears, tagged connected or not-configured, not-configured rows carry the setup command to run, and the active plan is included.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and answers what/why in one line, with the examples and setup-command detail following as supporting color. The two example phrasings are mildly redundant with the prose, keeping it just short of maximally tight.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so: it says every known provider is listed, how each is tagged, what the not-configured entries contain, and that the active plan is included. An agent needs nothing else to call it or interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list every cloud, SaaS, and LLM provider) plus the exact per-entry payload (connected / not-configured, active plan). This distinguishes it from the connect_* siblings, which perform configuration rather than enumeration.

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 starting point for 'what am I connected to' and for spotting which connector still needs credentials" gives a clear use context, reinforced by two example utterances. It never explicitly says to use connect_aws or nable_setup_status instead for other tasks, so the alternative routing is only implied.

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