List Providers & What Is Configured

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it declares the tool is offline and reads only tools-registry.json and env, telling the agent there is no network call, no provider invocation, and no credit consumption. It does not describe cost of calling or output shape beyond the key/env status, but the safety-relevant behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the question it answers, then scope, then behavioral constraints. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does: a list of every catalogued provider with whether its key/model env vars are set. The main remaining gap is the unresolved relationship to the sibling 'discover_providers'.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description adds that filtering/status is determined from env vars rather than arguments, reinforcing that no input is expected.

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 ('Lists every catalogued provider') and enumerates the catalog scope (stock, generative video/image, audio). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'discover_providers', which appears to be a closely related catalogue tool, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate the two from the description alone.

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?

Frames a concrete use case ('Use to answer what can this server do with my keys?') and notes the offline context, which implies when it is appropriate. However, it never names an alternative or a when-not condition, and the closely named sibling 'discover_providers' is left unaddressed, so routing between the two remains inferential.

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