list_providers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a non-destructive, read-only operation, and the description details what information is returned. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases such as empty states, authorization requirements, or rate limiting, which would enhance transparency for a more complete picture.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no unnecessary jargon or repetition. It is optimally sized for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It states the main purpose and the specific fields included in the result (status, models, health). While it does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., array vs. object), the information provided is sufficient for most use cases, and the lack of complexity reduces the need for additional context.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies. There is no additional semantic burden for the description to bear.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured providers'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'configure_provider' (which modifies providers) and other list tools (templates, styles). It also specifies the content of the listing (status, models, health), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 that this tool is for viewing provider information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not explicitly guided, so it remains at the 'implied usage' level.

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