Unraid API oidcProviders

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds one piece of behavioral context beyond that: the tool will not return client secrets, which is useful for an agent deciding whether output is safe to expose. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the one qualifier that matters. No filler; every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations are largely sufficient: it states the operation, the key security caveat, and the safety profile. The main gap is not clarifying the relationship to the closely named siblings, but this is minor given how simple and safe the call is.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to document. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('OIDC provider configuration'), and the qualifier 'without client secrets' adds meaningful scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like query_oidc_provider, query_oidc_configuration, and especially query_public_oidc_providers, leaving some ambiguity about what 'providers' excludes or includes.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the many OIDC-related siblings (query_oidc_provider, query_public_oidc_providers, query_oidc_configuration, query_is_sso_enabled). Neither alternatives nor exclusions are mentioned; only an implicit hint ('without client secrets') that this is the safe option when secrets are not needed.

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