Fetch VCS providers

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Returns the list'), but the annotation readOnlyHint is false, which is contradictory. The description does not disclose any side effects or behavioral nuances. This creates confusion for the agent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could provide more context about the returned list structure (e.g., fields like ID, name) to help agents use the output correctly.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no extra info needed.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'list of all configured VCS providers'. It specifies the scope ('all configured') but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_vcs_provider_by_repository_url or get_vcs_provider_repositories, which could be helpful for agents.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings. For example, it does not mention that this returns all providers, while get_vcs_provider_by_repository_url retrieves a single provider. The agent is left to infer from the resource name.

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