list_providers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the data source (.iconmcp.json else package.json), what it returns (versions, directory, supported providers), and implies a read-only operation. It doesn't mention side effects or permissions, but for a list operation this is adequate. The level of detail about the input source and output contents exceeds the minimum.

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 sentence but somewhat lengthy with multiple clauses enumerating output elements. It is front-loaded with the main action 'List' and the primary resource, but the trailing details (versions, directory, supported providers) are necessary for clarity. It is not overly verbose, though it could be split into two sentences for better readability. Overall efficient and focused.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It specifies the exact information returned (providers with versions, project directory, all supported providers) and even notes the fallback source (package.json if .iconmcp.json absent). This gives an agent sufficient understanding to call the tool and interpret results without ambiguity.

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 parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The rubric gives a baseline of 4 for zero parameters, and the description adds context about what the tool lists, which adds value even though no parameters exist. It doesn't repeat schema information since the schema is empty.

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 'the icon providers this project uses' and specifies additional output elements (versions, project directory, supported providers). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_icon and search_icons by focusing on configuration and capability enumeration rather than icon retrieval or search.

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 usage for inspecting the project's provider configuration and available providers. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the distinction from siblings (get_icon, search_icons, ping) is clear enough that an agent would know to call this when needing provider metadata. It lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, but the purpose is self-evident.

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