creative_studio_providers_list

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains what each entry reports (name, configured status, capabilities, model ids), the configuration criteria (API key or codex login), and the nuanced semantics of 'edit', 'max_size', and 'supported_sizes', including the clamping behavior. This goes well beyond a simple list.

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 dense but well-organized. It front-loads the core purpose, then details entry components, then clarifies capability field semantics, and ends with an explicit usage call. Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy or fluff.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides comprehensive context: what the tool returns, how to interpret the fields, configuration requirements, and when to call it. It equips the agent to use the tool effectively and understand results without additional guessing.

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, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning (there are none), but it thoroughly explains the output structure and field semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that without exceeding into parameter territory.

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 opens with 'List the image-generation providers available to Creative Studio', a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like creative_studio_generate_visual or creative_studio_edit_visual by framing it as a discovery/list operation.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this before creative_studio_generate_visual to see which providers can be selected', giving a clear when-to-use directive. It also conveys the purpose of checking provider configuration and capabilities, which helps the agent decide to invoke it appropriately.

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